[WITHDRAWN] Championing LGBTQ Tolerance and Acceptance

[Religious Lennox]

Support

[Daarwyrth]

Support

Thank you, glad to hear it!

[Religious Lennox]

Support

Thank you, glad to hear it!

Yw

[Daarwyrth]

Quorum has been reached in roughly 11 hours after submission! A big thank you to all the delegates who approved the proposal and are still approving it, it's hugely appreciated!

[Jutsa]

Good luck, Daarwyrth. I have faith you will finally become a trifecta member.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

Commends with great pride the endeavours of individual member nations in the General Assembly to further the rights and protections of individuals identifying with the LGBTQ community across member nations, with notable resolutions and authors being:

How is this clause legal? You can't commend in a declaration.

[Daarwyrth]

Commends with great pride the endeavours of individual member nations in the General Assembly to further the rights and protections of individuals identifying with the LGBTQ community across member nations, with notable resolutions and authors being:

How is this clause legal? You can't commend in a declaration.

"To commend" has more than one meaning. As you can see here, "to commend" means "to formally praise someone or something". It stands synonymous with an alternate version of the phrase such as "Praises with great pride", and as such is not meant as a Commendation in the sense of the Security Council, but instead is used as a synonym for "praises".

Good luck, Daarwyrth. I have faith you will finally become a trifecta member.

Thank you! c:

[Team Lennox]

How is this clause legal? You can't commend in a declaration.

"To commend" has more than one meaning. As you can see here, "to commend" means "to formally praise someone or something". It stands synonymous with an alternate version of the phrase such as "Praises with great pride", and as such is not meant as a Commendation in the sense of the Security Council, but instead is used as a synonym for "praises".

Good luck, Daarwyrth. I have faith you will finally become a trifecta member.

Thank you! c:

Good luck. Hopes this passes for the benefit for the LGBTQ+ community and straight people/allies to!

[ShrewLlamaLand]

How is this clause legal? You can't commend in a declaration.

"To commend" has more than one meaning. As you can see here, "to commend" means "to formally praise someone or something". It stands synonymous with an alternate version of the phrase such as "Praises with great pride", and as such is not meant as a Commendation in the sense of the Security Council, but instead is used as a synonym for "praises".

I know, believe it or not I'm not actually an idiot. It does, however, read like the operative clause of an SC commendation, hence the query.

Additionally, and this is unrelated to the above but I will state it for the record before the hoards come out to accuse CCD of being fascist again - I will be voting against this proposal because it reads more like a "let's pat everyone on the back for doing anything remotely LGBT-positive" rather its supposed purpose, a declaration in support of LGBT tolerance and acceptance.

[Team Lennox]

"To commend" has more than one meaning. As you can see here, "to commend" means "to formally praise someone or something". It stands synonymous with an alternate version of the phrase such as "Praises with great pride", and as such is not meant as a Commendation in the sense of the Security Council, but instead is used as a synonym for "praises".

I know, believe it or not I'm not actually an idiot. It does, however, read like the operative clause of an SC commendation, hence the query.

Additionally, and this is unrelated to the above but I will state it for the record before the hoards come out to accuse CCD of being fascist again - I will be voting against this proposal because it reads more like a "let's pat everyone on the back for doing anything remotely LGBT-positive" rather its supposed purpose, a declaration in support of LGBT tolerance and acceptance.

Just because you don't agree with the prop doesn't mean your fascist. In fact you drafted this draft to improve Trans rights.

[Sedgistan]

"To commend" has more than one meaning. As you can see here, "to commend" means "to formally praise someone or something". It stands synonymous with an alternate version of the phrase such as "Praises with great pride", and as such is not meant as a Commendation in the sense of the Security Council, but instead is used as a synonym for "praises".

I know, believe it or not I'm not actually an idiot. It does, however, read like the operative clause of an SC commendation, hence the query.

It's being discussed amongst the team - and input from SCers here would help too. The standard we set on this recently was:

We've just declared a proposal illegal that ended with the following:

Hereby declares:
1. War's definition as an armed conflict between individual nations and/or groups of nations;
2. The Security Council stands against war, and encourages nations to take up arms only to maintain peace, preventing the deaths of innocent civilians and mistreated soldiers;
3. Nations that have no regard for human rights and use various forms of oppression on prisoners of war, including torture, genocide, etc. are hereby condemned by the Security Council through their acts of violence.

This was judged to be a Rule 1e violation - trying to do more than a Declaration can do, specifically through this part: "Nations [...] are hereby condemned by the Security Council".

While use of the terms "commends" and "condemns" is allowed in Declarations, if it is close to being a valid operative clause for a Commendation/Condemnation, then it crosses over into a Rule 1e violation.

[ShrewLlamaLand]

I know, believe it or not I'm not actually an idiot. It does, however, read like the operative clause of an SC commendation, hence the query.

Additionally, and this is unrelated to the above but I will state it for the record before the hoards come out to accuse CCD of being fascist again - I will be voting against this proposal because it reads more like a "let's pat everyone on the back for doing anything remotely LGBT-positive" rather its supposed purpose, a declaration in support of LGBT tolerance and acceptance.

Just because you don't agree with the prop doesn't mean your fascist. In fact you drafted this draft to improve Trans rights.

You haven't been around here for long, have you?

This is correct however. I paused work on that draft due to regional drama at the time, and had been meaning to come back to it at some point but never got around to it due to legality issues surrounding existing resolutions.

I may return to it eventually given I still think those existing resolutions are insufficient and, in the case of "A Convention On Gender", outdated, misleading and potentially harmful (...despite being praised in this proposal).

I know, believe it or not I'm not actually an idiot. It does, however, read like the operative clause of an SC commendation, hence the query.

It's being discussed amongst the team - and input from SCers here would help too. The standard we set on this recently was:

We've just declared a proposal illegal that ended with the following:

This was judged to be a Rule 1e violation - trying to do more than a Declaration can do, specifically through this part: "Nations [...] are hereby condemned by the Security Council".

While use of the terms "commends" and "condemns" is allowed in Declarations, if it is close to being a valid operative clause for a Commendation/Condemnation, then it crosses over into a Rule 1e violation.

Thank you for the clarification, I do remember seeing that ruling and thus figured this would also probably be declared illegal... although I understand this may be a borderline case given it specifically commends the "endeavours of individual member nations" rather than those nations themselves.

fwiw, my personal opinion is that this still comes too close to being an operative clause for a commendation, thus violating Rule 1e.

[Tinhampton]

It's being discussed amongst the team - and input from SCers here would help too...

The Security Council can only Commend or Condemn nations (or regions), not "the endeavours of individual member nations."

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

It's being discussed amongst the team - and input from SCers here would help too...

The Security Council can only Commend or Condemn nations (or regions), not "the endeavours of individual member nations."

I’m going to agree with Tinhampton here - I think the clause falls just on the right side of legal. It’s commending the endeavours not the nations/regions. It’s a hair split but I think the author gets away with it.

Sedge’s example specifically condemns nations or regions and reads very much more like an operative clause.

[Daarwyrth]

It's being discussed amongst the team - and input from SCers here would help too. The standard we set on this recently was:

While, of course, as the author I may appear to be biased regarding this, I do agree with Tinhampton and Bhang Bhang Duc. The clause isn't commending nations/regions, but the endeavours of nations, which is where the difference is in. If the clause commended those nations specifically, then I agree that a rephrasing would be needed. However, in this particular case, I think that "commending the endeavours" should be okay, if only just.

[Sedgistan]

In this case we're leaning towards "legal, just about" as a result of the "endeavours of" wording.

[Matriarchal Rule]

We send our full support

[Great Algerstonia]

2d should be cut, what is so positive about vexillology?

Additionally, I will be voting against due to OOC in the WA. WA should be IC only. Mixing of IC and OOC is never good.

[Daarwyrth]

We send our full support

Thank you!

[Tsaivao]

2d should be cut, what is so positive about vexillology?

Additionally, I will be voting against due to OOC in the WA. WA should be IC only. Mixing of IC and OOC is never good.

Sounds like you don't know how the SC works. The Security Council has always bled the line between IC and OOC, much to the annoyance of GA players. This proposal isnt any more out of line than the 300-ish resolutions that came before and have gone further

[Great Algerstonia]

2d should be cut, what is so positive about vexillology?

Additionally, I will be voting against due to OOC in the WA. WA should be IC only. Mixing of IC and OOC is never good.

Sounds like you don't know how the SC works.

I know full well how it works. Doesn't mean I have to like the constant mixing of IC and OOC.

[Cappedore]

The cause is fine, but the more I read it, the more I feel that this would definitely fall in GA boundaries. So the County of Cappedore does not support this proposal. It's a good and well-written proposal, but we find ourselves questioning its legality - despite what gensec has said.

[Herby]

The cause is fine, but the more I read it, the more I feel that this would definitely fall in GA boundaries. So the County of Cappedore does not support this proposal. It's a good and well-written proposal, but we find ourselves questioning its legality - despite what gensec has said.

I disagree. This is a fine example of what the new Declarations category should entail. Put this in the GA as is and large bits of it break several rules, and it would not be an easy fix.

[Great Algerstonia]

The cause is fine, but the more I read it, the more I feel that this would definitely fall in GA boundaries. So the County of Cappedore does not support this proposal. It's a good and well-written proposal, but we find ourselves questioning its legality - despite what gensec has said.

I disagree. This is a fine example of what the new Declarations category should entail. Put this in the GA as is and large bits of it break several rules, and it would not be an easy fix.

How is this a "fine example"? This resolution is entirely OOC, offers an opinion on wholly OOC content, brings explicitly OOC content (Pride Month) into the Security Council, and all in all seems like a case of [insert popular thing here to pass in a Declaration], combined with [throw in everything remotely positive about said popular thing to get it to pass in a Declaration]...

[Herby]

I disagree. This is a fine example of what the new Declarations category should entail. Put this in the GA as is and large bits of it break several rules, and it would not be an easy fix.

How is this a "fine example"? This resolution is entirely OOC, offers an opinion on wholly OOC content, brings explicitly OOC content (Pride Month) into the Security Council, and all in all seems like a case of [insert popular thing here to pass in a Declaration], combined with [throw in everything remotely positive about said popular thing to get it to pass in a Declaration]...

And… how is that a bad thing? Most SC resolutions have significant OOC aspects to them.