NationStates

Crazy girl wrote:What happened last time this was repealed? Oh yeah, they gave us another reason to condemn.

Against. Never forget.

United Socialist Territories wrote:They're still a dictatorship which isolates its citizens

Cormactopia Prime wrote:I don't think this proposal would be legal without the clause regarding Lazarus (which people are rightly insisting be removed, because it isn't true).

Per the Security Council rules, "if your proposal is a Repeal it must address the contents of the resolution it is repealing." A repeal can bring up new developments as a factor in a repeal, but any repeal proposal that doesn't address the contents of the actual resolution isn't legal, and without the Lazarus clause this repeal proposal doesn't address anything in the resolution and just tells us the NPO has changed. That you can't identify anything sufficiently wrong with the actual text of the resolution to warrant repeal of it and all of this is based on new developments is a reason to be against repeal. This simply isn't a proposal that stands up to scrutiny.

Fauxia wrote:Acknowledging the past crimes of The Pacific, also referred to as the New Pacific Order (NPO), as inscribed by SC #268,

Understanding that said violations of international standards are not to be taken lightly,

Observing, however, that the nations primarily responsible for the NPO’s duplicitous machinations have been removed from positions of power or have departed from the region altogether, including former Emperor Aleisyr and former Consul Pergamon,

Noting that the current generation of Pacifican leaders, such as Xoriet (a nation commended by this very Council in SC #266) and The Seeker of Power, do not share the former leadership’s aims of strife and conquest,

Wrapper wrote:How does the following not "address the contents of the resolution it is repealing"? It seems sufficient to me.

Cormactopia Prime wrote:My understanding of the rule is that a repeal needs to address the text of the resolution in a more substantive way than just citing new developments as a reason for repeal? It's possible I'm just misunderstanding the rule, because you were a moderator so you would probably understand it better than me.

Cormactopia Prime wrote:

Wrapper wrote:How does the following not "address the contents of the resolution it is repealing"? It seems sufficient to me.

My understanding of the rule is that a repeal needs to address the text of the resolution in a more substantive way than just citing new developments as a reason for repeal? It's possible I'm just misunderstanding the rule, because you were a moderator so you would probably understand it better than me.

In any case, even if legal, I'm against repeal unless the author can identify flaws in the text of the resolution, because I don't think the new developments cited and passage of time are sufficient reason for repeal. The condemnation was for actions the Pacific's regime committed at the time, and even if you accept that they've turned over a new leaf (which I do not), they were still responsible for those actions. Fauxia would present a much stronger argument by identifying flaws in the resolution as well. There are flaws to be spotted, but I'm not interested in helping that process along because I'm not in favor of repeal, let alone helping with the drafting of it, unless I believe there's at least a decent likelihood of a better replacement condemnation passing.

Ardchoille wrote:Repeals: A REPEAL of a C&C should address the contents of the C&C in question. However, a repeal that consists of nothing but a negative of the original -- eg, Commend X because he is a good guy, Repeal Commend X because he is NOT a good guy -- may be deleted on the grounds that the SC already discussed this in the original debate. (cf "I don't like this" being forbidden in GA Repeal arguments.)

A Commendation or Condemnation is an expression of opinion by the WA. Repealing it is saying that the WA has changed its mind. You should therefore give reasons for the change of mind. These may include matters that have come to light or changed since the original resolution. See further discussion here.

“Observing, however, that the nations primarily responsible for the NPO’s duplicitous machinations have been removed from positions of power or have departed from the region altogether, including former Emperor Aleisyr and former Consul Pergamon,”

“Gratified by the Pacific’s reforms, including:
* The abandonment of Francoism, the former state ideology that pitted nations in Feeder and Sinker regions against other nations. As the ideology was used as justification for destabilization projects, most notably in ‪Lazarus‬, this move signaled a modern and more amicable era for the NPO,”

“Recognizing that the world has moved on from The NPO’s former pariah status, as most of the feeder and sinker regions have renormalized relations with the Pacific following its previous diplomatic isolation,”

“Considering that much of the evidence used against the Pacific in Lazarus, though damning in some ways, was incomplete and framed in large part by individuals biased against it, and that the NPO’s motives may have been far less malicious than was previously understood,”

Acknowledging the past crimes of The Pacific, also referred to as the New Pacific Order (NPO), as inscribed by SC #268,

Understanding that said violations of international standards are not to be taken lightly

Considering that much of the evidence used against the Pacific in Lazarus, though damning in some ways, was incomplete and framed in large part by individuals biased against it, and that the NPO’s motives may have been far less malicious than was previously understood

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that in the time that has elapsed since the tragic events described in SC#268, the Pacific's state government, New Pacific Order (NPO), has changed leadership and committed to a higher standard of international conduct with respect to regional sovereignty.

Further recognizing that three years have passed without international incident from the New Pacific Order, more than thrice the time that had passed between the passage of SC#202 and SC#177,

Resolving that, although doubts remain in the international community regarding the NPO, the WA Security Council is committed to acting in all its determinations with the good faith and trust necessary for the preservation of international peace and goodwill abroad,

Acknowledging that as a feeder region, the Pacific permanantly plays an essential role in NationStates as a first port of call for newcomers. All member-nations have a stake in a lasting rehabiliation of the Pacific as a welcoming and vital community,

Noting, that notwithstanding this resolution's decision to repeal the aforementioned, the World Assembly remains a committed advocate for the furtherment of democracy and the right to self-determination of all peoples,

Hereby repeals "Condemn the Pacific."

Fauxia wrote:So I haven't written anything in a while, and this could be a dumpster fire and everyone hates it, but I think it deserves some attention. Feel free to tar-and-feather, it's not my first rodeo here.

Security Council Resolution #268 “Condemn The Pacific” shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The Security Council,

Celebrating its own power and unique ability to encourage reform in regions subject to its most severe and overbearing condemnations,

Acknowledging the past crimes of The Pacific, also referred to as the New Pacific Order (NPO), as inscribed by SC #268,

Understanding that said violations of international standards are not to be taken lightly,

Observing, however, that the nations primarily responsible for the NPO’s duplicitous machinations have been removed from positions of power or have departed from the region altogether, including former Emperor Aleisyr and former Consul Pergamon,

Noting that the current generation of Pacifican leaders, such as Xoriet (a nation commended by this very Council in SC #266) and The Seeker of Power, do not share the former leadership’s aims of strife and conquest,

Gratified by the Pacific’s reforms, including:

• The abandonment of Francoism, the former state ideology that pitted nations in Feeder and Sinker regions against other nations. As the ideology was used as justification for destabilization projects, most notably in Lazarus, this move signaled a modern and more amicable era for the NPO,
• The termination of its controversial "protectorship" of St Abbaddon, removing its previously-imposed roadblock to the growth of the native community of an ancient and storied region,
• Changes to the government structure, including the creation of a new charter and the addition of an elected Senator position. Though by no means did the reforms make the Pacific a democratic region, the changes further empowered the citizens and created added oversight on the region that would formerly have been unthinkable.

Recognizing that the world has moved on from The NPO’s former pariah status, as most of the feeder and sinker regions have renormalized relations with the Pacific following its previous diplomatic isolation,

Considering that much of the evidence used against the Pacific in Lazarus, though damning in some ways, was incomplete and framed in large part by individuals biased against it, and that the NPO’s motives may have been far less malicious than was previously understood,

Reserving the right to condemn the NPO once again should it relapse into its old imperialist ways,

Believing, nonetheless, that the Pacific’s redemption deserves to continue without the colossal shadow of condemnation hanging above it,

Hereby repeals SC #268 "Condemn the Pacific".

Blah blah blah, suggestions welcome, peanut gallery open.

Unibot III wrote:Steal whatever you like from this. Just something quick that I whipped up.

Basically I don't think the resolution should sound like it was written by the Pacific. It should sounded like an international body that is committed to peace, goodwill, and self-determination - and it should approach the situation cautiously and judiciously.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that in the time that has elapsed since the tragic events described in SC#268, the Pacific's state government, New Pacific Order (NPO), has changed leadership and committed to a higher standard of international conduct with respect to regional sovereignty.

Further recognizing that three years have passed without international incident from the New Pacific Order, more than thrice the time that had passed between the passage of SC#202 and SC#177,

Resolving that, although doubts remain in the international community regarding the NPO, the WA Security Council is committed to acting in all its determinations with the good faith and trust necessary for the preservation of international peace and goodwill abroad,

Acknowledging that as a feeder region, the Pacific permanantly plays an essential role in NationStates as a first port of call for newcomers. All member-nations have a stake in a lasting rehabiliation of the Pacific as a welcoming and vital community,

Noting, that notwithstanding this resolution's decision to repeal the aforementioned, the World Assembly remains a committed advocate for the furtherment of democracy and the right to self-determination of all peoples,

Hereby repeals "Condemn the Pacific."

Kylia Quilor wrote:

Unibot III wrote:Steal whatever you like from this. Just something quick that I whipped up.

Basically I don't think the resolution should sound like it was written by the Pacific. It should sounded like an international body that is committed to peace, goodwill, and self-determination - and it should approach the situation cautiously and judiciously.

It may avoid the mistakes you addressed for the original, but it comes out more mealy-mouthed and double-talked.

Unibot III wrote:I don’t like Cormac’s draft because I think it sets the precedent that might encourage authors to write “technical” repeals of regions without a replacement ready. You shouldn’t be writing a technical repeal if you do not intend to replace the resolution — it’s disingenuous. You should write what the WASC believes without ulterior considerations.

Unibot III wrote:

Kylia Quilor wrote:It may avoid the mistakes you addressed for the original, but it comes out more mealy-mouthed and double-talked.

That’s because I wrote an argument that I agreed with.

The argument it is taking is that you or I or others may have our individual doubts about NPO, but the WASC has to act as a higher conscience that risks being wrong, and extends its trust in good faith, because those acts of faith are a necessary condition of peace and goodwill.

I do agree with that.

I think it’s also essential to stress that no one benefits from a failure to reconcile, the Pacific is a permanent and important part of NS.

The best case for NPO is the time that has passed without incident. Most of the other reasons aren’t very convincing — the legal reforms are not very substantive, Elegarth was a second in command in NPO for like a decade, Francoism has been officially discontinued and denounced several times now .. etc. But you can’t argue with time.

I don’t like Cormac’s draft because I think it sets the precedent that might encourage authors to write “technical” repeals of regions without a replacement ready. You shouldn’t be writing a technical repeal if you do not intend to replace the resolution — it’s disingenuous. You should write what the WASC believes without ulterior considerations.

Kylia Quilor wrote:Fair enough. I don't agree with you that the WASC needs to act with a conscience, it should (and does) act as a petty political club for regional elites and gameplay veterans to snipe at eachother over decade-old drama while abusing the powers [violet] gave us.

But, I can see where your limited draft comes from.

Cormactopia Prime wrote:

Wrapper wrote:How does the following not "address the contents of the resolution it is repealing"? It seems sufficient to me.

My understanding of the rule is that a repeal needs to address the text of the resolution in a more substantive way than just citing new developments as a reason for repeal? It's possible I'm just misunderstanding the rule, because you were a moderator so you would probably understand it better than me.

Sedgistan wrote:

Cormactopia Prime wrote:My understanding of the rule is that a repeal needs to address the text of the resolution in a more substantive way than just citing new developments as a reason for repeal? It's possible I'm just misunderstanding the rule, because you were a moderator so you would probably understand it better than me.

For the record, Wrapper's reading of this is in line with mine. Rule 1b (relevant argument) is rarely invoked for repeals drafted on the forums, as almost all of them make some effort to address the contents of what they're repealing. That may not be a point-by-point rebuttal of the original resolution, but even just acknowledging its core argument and explaining why that isn't valid, is generally sufficient.

Unibot III wrote:The best case for NPO is the time that has passed without incident. Most of the other reasons aren’t very convincing — the legal reforms are not very substantive, Elegarth was a second in command in NPO for like a decade, Francoism has been officially discontinued and denounced several times now .. etc. But you can’t argue with time.