[Draft] Repeal: Recognition of the General Assembly

[Tinfect]

Repeal: Recognition of the General Assembly

Origin: Imperium of Tinfect,

Author: Elesvanir Marsev

Imperial Division of Foreign Policy and Diplomatic Action,

Counsel: Verat Kathil

Imperial Division of Intelligence and Information, Research and Development Division, Subspace Mechanics and Manipulation

---

The Security Council,

Presuming the good intentions of the target legislation,

Yet appalled at the myriad horrors and mild inconveniences that have arisen from the target, including, but not limited to:

1. Great masses of diplomats, bureaucrats, and insufferable political pundits within Member-States writhing in incurable madness following the revelation of a second chamber within the World Assembly,
2. Member-States physically transplanting themselves across vast swathes of space and time to spraypaint their flags on unwilling regions, severing international infrastructure, reorganizing oceans and continents, and trapping tourists, transport ships, and aircraft, in unfamiliar locales with no clear avenue of return,
3. The slaving of national clocks and government timetables to a mysterious, semi-regular 'update', applied inconsistently across all known regions,
4. Member-States themselves, as nations, being considered for 'regional citizenship', and expected to fulfill the duties of a 'regional government', as though they were some kind of singular entity capable of holding office,
5. The doubling of the workload of the already tragically overworked World Assembly Gnome,

And confused by the proclamation within Clause 5 of the target, when we all got along just fine without tearing some really quite nice walls down,

Hereby repeals Resolution [insert number here], Recognition of the General Assembly.

"The Imperium," said Marsev, looking distinctly out of place in the three-walled chamber, "denies any and all allegations made within Security Council Resolution Two-Ninety-Seven; The Imperium remains in full compliance with all World Assembly legislation, and we urge Member-States to immediately repeal the harmful falsehoods perpetuated within the document."

OOC:
Petty, perhaps, but I figured I'd have it ready seeing as how it's got a bunch of major regions behind it. I think it's legal, if, rather shorter than I'd like, but I'm not exactly familiar with the SC rules. The objective here is rather to display the absurdity of trying to merge the IC space the GA exists in with the oddball Metagame nature of the SC.
If I forget to submit this/post in this thread by the time it passes, anyone similarly inclined to pointless gestures of annoyance may freely cannibalize the draft for their own.

[WayNeacTia]

Looks good to me. Best of luck.

[Lord Dominator]

OOC: My only notes at present is that clause 3 is inaccurate - update is both regular and consistent across regions (noon/midnight EST, all regions always go in the same order - only excepting when admin scrambles the order once or twice a decade).

[Sandaoguo]

Other things I'd mention:

- The General Assembly won't (and can't) extend similar recognition
- The SC loves to commend raiding, an activity that's a blatant violation of GAR#2 - Rights and Duties of WA States among other resolutions
- Trying to merge the universes of the GA and the SC will result in a catastrophic breakdown of the GA multiverse, due to the "metagaming paradox" that the physics of the GA multiverse cannot overcome. This is an act of multiversal genocide.

[Sedgistan]

What is it with a certain subset of General Assembly players being so insistent that the only way they can function is to ignore the Security Council - yet simultaneously coming into the Security Council to repeatedly insist that it does as they wish?

If you must ignore the SC, then try actually ignoring it. And let those broader-minded World Assembly players who can comprehend the two Councils existing together, go about their business in the SC.

[Sandaoguo]

What is it with a certain subset of General Assembly players being so insistent that the only way they can function is to ignore the Security Council - yet simultaneously coming into the Security Council to repeatedly insist that it does as they wish?

If you must ignore the SC, then try actually ignoring it. And let those broader-minded World Assembly players who can comprehend the two Councils existing together, go about their business in the SC.

No offense Sedge, but I think you know and just don't like the answer. (Also, you're basically doing the same thing here that you chided QoD for.)

I'm not in this "subset of General Assembly players" but I do fully understand their issues here, and not just because it's been explained so many times already in response to posts just like this! The dismissiveness of your post is disrespectful, and that applies to the whole push to "recognize" the GA as a whole. First, if you really don't understand why the GA can't recognize the SC, then you haven't taken the time to understand the GA rules and role-play conventions. Second, it's exactly not learning those conventions that makes the SC unilaterally trying to "merge" the GA and SC together disrespectful.

The most annoying part here is that the SC doesn't actually want to recognize the GA. We know that's the case, because the GA's entire body of international humanitarian law and the laws of war, if applied in any cogent way to the activities the SC has found a tortured way of recognizing (... R/D), make those activities illegal. The SC is apparently recognizing the GA, the entire body of law the GA has created, and is saying that those laws must be followed in the SC too. But we all know the SC isn't about to recognize raiding as illegal. So this whole exercise is pointless. The only time the SC wants to recognize the GA is to have this exact debate about "why does the GA feel so entitled and special?"

The SC has spent literally no time contemplating how the two universes can be rationally combined. The SC has allowed mentioning the GA for a long time now, but it's literally in a meta-gaming way of congratulating players for passing lots of resolutions. The SC is a meta-gaming body that veils its meta-gaming in RP terminology, but is fundamentally about recognize the achievements (or denouncing the misbehavior) of the players-behind-the-nations and removing regional passwords in R/D battles. Allowing the GA to be mentioned in SC resolutions is easy to reconcile, because there's no problem with meta-gaming in the SC at the end of the day.

That's not true for the GA. Preventing meta-gaming has been an organizational priority for the GA its entire existence. The role-play universe relies on strict meta-gaming rules. The failure of the SC to recognize that and grapple with it is a real problem, and not seeing that just shows exactly why that subset of GA players you complain about keep being upset about it. The SC community doesn't respect their role-play conventions, but now is trying to unilaterally merge the universes without any consultation, no debate about if that can actually be done in any way that makes sense, and in reality without any actual intention of taking the target resolution seriously anyways. (Again, see the fact that raiding would be illegal under GA international law.) Why shouldn't that piss them off? The universe they've spent the better half of 20 years creating and refining is being used wantonly by the SC, and they're told to ... get over it and ignore it if they don't like it.

Perhaps you should have actually engaged in more consultation with both communities before unleashing this "declaration" feature, so that things like this, basic ground rules to respect the boundaries of both communities, could be ironed out beforehand. But you didn't, so of course this is now going to be a fight played out by players themselves. You really have no space here to complain about it, or tell angry GA players that they're borderline trolling, etc.

Just my $0.02.

[Tinfect]

Other things I'd mention:
- The General Assembly won't (and can't) extend similar recognition
- The SC loves to commend raiding, an activity that's a blatant violation of GAR#2 - Rights and Duties of WA States among other resolutions
- Trying to merge the universes of the GA and the SC will result in a catastrophic breakdown of the GA multiverse, due to the "metagaming paradox" that the physics of the GA multiverse cannot overcome. This is an act of multiversal genocide.

Thank you for the help, and the later, larger response.

What is it with a certain subset of General Assembly players being so insistent that the only way they can function is to ignore the Security Council - yet simultaneously coming into the Security Council to repeatedly insist that it does as they wish?
If you must ignore the SC, then try actually ignoring it. And let those broader-minded World Assembly players who can comprehend the two Councils existing together, go about their business in the SC.

Oh, make no mistake, the regulars will ignore it, because they literally have to, or IC/OOC divide utterly collapses. The RP is the only thing the GA actually has going for it, it's not like the SC, where you can order the disabling of regional defenses or praise noteworthy players or whatnot; we're trying to maintain an RP space based on international laws and diplomacy. These things are fundamentally incompatible; for the GA, Nationstates is the framework for an RP community. The only stake we have in Gameplayer affairs is that resolutions are put to a public vote, the nature of which is abstracted out because it would be absurd to do otherwise.

This resolution, as Sandaoguo up there says quite nicely, the supporters of this resolution from the SC, by and large, do not know, or care, how the GA works, or what the logical consequences of such recognition are. This resolution would serve as nothing more than an obstacle to new players and an ongoing problem for GA'ers who will get to be shouted at by SC players who very clearly want recognition to go both ways. The resolution achieves nothing, but pissing people off, and frankly deepening a largely impassable divide in communities. The resolution is demanding the GA take some action that it fundamentally cannot take; yes, we can and will just ignore it, but these things will have an effect on the playerbase.

I assure you, I would very much like this to be my first and last serious foray into the SC. I can't stand the GA anymore for mental health reasons, and if the people here are comfortable taking that kind of tone out of the blue, I don't imagine this place will be much better.
There'll be a new draft up soon.

[Sedgistan]

Plenty of WA players have been able to roleplay in both chambers in the past - it's a matter of "don't want to" rather than "cannot"; which is fine - just don't present it as impossible to do. Even Kenny and Yelda - neither of whom liked the SC - were able to roleplay their nations and ambassadors within SC debates without the sky falling on their heads.

There are lots of "crossover" players who participate in both chambers - the resolution this seeks to repeal is authored by one such - and the isolationists are not the only players in the GA.

Perhaps you should have actually engaged in more consultation with both communities before unleashing this "declaration" feature, so that things like this, basic ground rules to respect the boundaries of both communities, could be ironed out beforehand. But you didn't, so of course this is now going to be a fight played out by players themselves.

Those GA players who are resistant to change do not get to hold back the SC's development. Again; if your roleplay really requires you to ignore the SC, then actually ignore it - including whatever it says about the GA.

[Tinfect]

Plenty of WA players have been able to roleplay in both chambers in the past - it's a matter of "don't want to" rather than "cannot"; which is fine - just don't present it as impossible to do. Even Kenny and Yelda - neither of whom liked the SC - were able to roleplay their nations and ambassadors within SC debates without the sky falling on their heads.

Given that I have no clue who Yelda is, save for the vague memory of possibly a mention in Kenny's sig or something, I will safely assume that this was a very long time ago, wherein the conventions in both chambers were quiet different. Even discounting that, Kenny had a distinctly whimsical manner of RP that cared very little for coherence in matters like this. The RP community has, developed.
But, this doesn't illustrate the point you think it does anyway; the SC is a metagame entity, it may be unusual for an RP character to turn up, but it's not out of the question. The reverse is impossible in the GA; a player cannot descend from on high and interact with the RP characters. That's metagaming, that's what the OOC tags are for. This is the long-established reality of the GA.

There are lots of "crossover" players who participate in both chambers - the resolution this seeks to repeal is authored by one such - and the isolationists are not the only players in the GA.

Yes, but do you see Sierra Lyricalia leaning on their SC Achievements in GA RP? Crossover players can exist, no one questions that, but that doesn't change that the spaces involved are fundamentally different. Recognition only goes one way, because that's the only way things make sense. We're not demanding the SC never look in the direction of the GA, we don't want to be put in the position of having the expectation to recognize a metagame entity that would shatter RP conventions entirely. The status-quo, in other words.

Those GA players who are resistant to change do not get to hold back the SC's development. Again; if your roleplay really requires you to ignore the SC, then actually ignore it - including whatever it says about the GA.

It would be greatly appreciated if you would actually read what we're saying about the consequences of 'just ignoring it'. You're clearly frustrated, but making wild accusations and utterly ignoring anything we have to say, frankly, is childish.

Simply put, the SC cannot expect to freely make demands of the GA without some response from GA players. We will ignore it, because we have to, or things stop working, but that doesn't mean we forego our right to a voice in matters concerning us.

[Quintessence of Dust]

Writing an in-character repeal and responding in-character to this resolution makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever.

[Tinfect]

Writing an in-character repeal and responding in-character to this resolution makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever.

It's amusing, and broadly in the spirit of the GA when sillyness like this crops up.
In any case, you're probably right that it'd be better if I were stating a bit more of my case in the repeal; I'll see what I can do.

[Goobergunchia]

We frankly do not believe that the draft proposal is accurate. Member nations have been airlifted great distances via military-grade helicopters since before I began my service as the ambassador of the Moderately Liberal Unitary Republic. We do not see why this would come as a shock revelation. Further, we do not see what is particularly mysterious about the fact that the World Assembly compiles a regular census report, nor that the time of compilation of this report is regular, nor that the position of Delegate is redetermined at the time of each report.

It also seems obvious to us that most positions of international leadership are formally vested in nations, not in specific individuals, but ultimately it is up to the individual national governments to determine who should represent them in intergovernmental and supragovernmental organizations. For instance, if the Moderately Liberal Unitary Republic were to be elected Delegate of the Rejected Realms, it would be via a vote of all those qualified to so elect. Yet the actual duties of Regional Delegate in the World Assembly chambers would still be carried out by the Ambassador of the Moderately Liberal Unitary Republic (whether that be myself or some other person designated by our First Minister and affirmed by our High Council).

Finally, we are saddened that Tinfect lacks the capability to properly care for its mentally ill citizens, but we are well aware that the World Assembly has state-of-the-art counseling facilities ready for those who may be taken aback by the diversity of the multiverse. The most convenient entrance is in the back of the bar.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Moderately Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia

[Sandaoguo]

Plenty of WA players have been able to roleplay in both chambers in the past - it's a matter of "don't want to" rather than "cannot"; which is fine - just don't present it as impossible to do. Even Kenny and Yelda - neither of whom liked the SC - were able to roleplay their nations and ambassadors within SC debates without the sky falling on their heads.

There are lots of "crossover" players who participate in both chambers - the resolution this seeks to repeal is authored by one such - and the isolationists are not the only players in the GA.

The willingness of an individual player to try to reconcile the inherent meta-gaming nature of the SC doesn't negate anything that's been explained about why the GA universe is incompatible with the SC. This is also really side-stepping the bigger issues that you've been ignoring.

If the SC recognizing the GA, and all its laws as authoritative... are you going to be the first to say that means raiding is illegal, and thus the SC cannot do anything approving or condoning it? Are you going to go through the entire GA body of law and reconcile it with the SC, ensuring that SC resolutions aren't going to contradict it? No, you aren't. You don't even see an issue with SC declarations contradicting themselves in the first place!

This whole thing is a farce, and pointing to the farce and saying, "I don't see why a certain subset of GA players are upset about the farce" is... disrespectful. I don't know how else to explain to you that the viewpoint you keep repeating is disrespectful of the entire GA community and the nearly 2 decades of work and world-building that's happened over there. You don't believe it is, which is the root of the problem.

Those GA players who are resistant to change do not get to hold back the SC's development. Again; if your roleplay really requires you to ignore the SC, then actually ignore it - including whatever it says about the GA.

It's not individual role-plays that requiring "ignoring the SC." You still aren't even willing to acknowledge how the GA works, which is literally part of NationStates. But the SC should be able to do... whatever it wants to and about the GA, through these declarations that you rushed into the game without any rules. If declarations were implemented in a way that maintained the literal NationState game-defined, rule-based separation of the GA and SC, there wouldn't be an issue. The SC would write declarations about the R/D meta-game, inter-regional politics, etc., in its weird quasi-in-character style (that's genuinely pointless!), while the GA wouldn't have to worry about having to explain to all new players that no.. the SC doesn't exist in the GA, here's why, here are the rules of the GA that explain it, please disregard whatever SC declaration says because the admins/mods implemented them with total disregard to the official rules of an entire part of the website.

By the way, this was something I pointed out before this feature went live. Which was completely ignored at the time, too.

[WayNeacTia]

What is it with a certain subset of General Assembly players being so insistent that the only way they can function is to ignore the Security Council - yet simultaneously coming into the Security Council to repeatedly insist that it does as they wish?

If you must ignore the SC, then try actually ignoring it. And let those broader-minded World Assembly players who can comprehend the two Councils existing together, go about their business in the SC.

Then you try and convince the badge hunters to quit passing C&C's based upon GA authorship alone.

[Refuge Isle]

Other things I'd mention:

- The General Assembly won't (and can't) extend similar recognition

This is not an issue that is caused by this resolution, the SC, or the SC recognising the GA.

- The SC loves to commend raiding, an activity that's a blatant violation of GAR#2 - Rights and Duties of WA States among other resolutions

I'm not convinced that it is, to be quite honest. You cannot attack nations in r/d, you attack regions. Nations, themselves, cannot be damaged in any way and no amount of gameplay prowess or security council condemnation will actually affect a nation's safety, ability to exist, etc. They simply cannot be invaded or destroyed and it's not possible to reference regions in GA resolutions beyond a literal definition of nearby geographic area. So the scope of the two chambers are different and can live compatibly with one another. I believe Kris made comments to this end in our own forum recently.

[Lord Dominator]

At that, literally every aspect of R/D is a metagaming violation by the GA rules - raiding (in the Gameplay sense) can’t be banned by the GA because the GA can’t legally mention any part of it.

(Refuge of course explains more artistically)




On a separate note, the SC and GA hypothetically having mutual acknowledgment does not inherently mean their duplication/contradiction rules would pass over chamber boundaries - indeed it’d be more realistic that they can’t, since they’d remain separate chambers.

[Cormactopia Prime]

What is it with a certain subset of General Assembly players being so insistent that the only way they can function is to ignore the Security Council - yet simultaneously coming into the Security Council to repeatedly insist that it does as they wish?

If you must ignore the SC, then try actually ignoring it. And let those broader-minded World Assembly players who can comprehend the two Councils existing together, go about their business in the SC.

Hello there, actual SC player and I don't like Recognition of the General Assembly either. I welcome efforts by GA players to keep the two chambers separate.

[Tinfect]

I do still intend to submit this, pending a bit of work that I'll hopefully remember to do tomorrow. Just a heads-up.

[Sandaoguo]

This is not an issue that is caused by this resolution, the SC, or the SC recognising the GA.

..? Not sure what your point is here. Do you think repeals can only offer objective arguments?

- The SC loves to commend raiding, an activity that's a blatant violation of GAR#2 - Rights and Duties of WA States among other resolutions

I'm not convinced that it is, to be quite honest. You cannot attack nations in r/d, you attack regions. Nations, themselves, cannot be damaged in any way and no amount of gameplay prowess or security council condemnation will actually affect a nation's safety, ability to exist, etc. They simply cannot be invaded or destroyed and it's not possible to reference regions in GA resolutions beyond a literal definition of nearby geographic area. So the scope of the two chambers are different and can live compatibly with one another. I believe Kris made comments to this end in our own forum recently.

This is a very superficial argument. First of all, "regions" (the NS game function) can't even be mentioned in the GA. But in any case, you're missing a pretty fundamental aspect of R/D-- nations the unit of measurement. You raid by ejecting nations from a region. You move nations in to claim the WA Delegate position, which is held by a nation. Regions are skeletal husks, everything in NS is done by nations.

GAR#2 absolutely makes raiding illegal. R/D is "war" as far as NationStates is concerned. And war is defined under World Assembly law as consensual. Will raiders now be asking for consent of the regions they raid? Hm. GAR#2 also guarantees territorial sovereignty to every nation, so if any nation is ejected as part of a raid, that's a violation too.

Even more interesting, C&Cs about raids, defenses, wars, or any other type of conflict, are illegal under GAR#2. The World Assembly must maintain neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. It can't ratify or denounce any conflict. That pretty much wipes out 90% of C&Cs. It makes Liberations totally illegal.

Of course, none of that matters because the mods don't care about what "recognition of the General Assembly" means, what the consequences of this resolution are, etc. There's been no thought at all put it into. Just a "hm, this seems legal" post, as part of a roll-out of a feature with no foresight into how it would be used. So in reality, it doesn't matter what the GA laws say. The SC has passed a resolution "recognizing" the GA, saying everybody has to follow its laws, and it's all totally and completely meaningless because the words in Declarations don't matter. They could be gibberish for all anyone seems to officially care.

[Lord Dominator]

You’re really stretching to apply a bunch of stuff specifically targeted at nations to R/D - if I raid a region with my buddies, I’ve not declared war on the nations in that region (because I generally don’t care about them. If I eject them, they retain their territorial sovereignty (as regions are not nations). That the GA can’t mention regions hardly makes it logical to apply everything about nations to regions, when the entire resolution is written applying to nations as nations.

That R/D is war as far as NS is concerned is irrelevant to Rights and Duties - it specifically targets conflict between nations, and if we entertain authorial intent, it was specifically done with rp in mind, not r/d.

And of course, both chambers (regardless of recognition) remain separate (and thus need not adhere to each other’s rules or passed whatevers when considering their own), and declarations remain strongly worded letters (not laws).

[Refuge Isle]

..? Not sure what your point is here. Do you think repeals can only offer objective arguments?

You made an argument about how an IC action in the SC is a poor idea due to a limitation in the other chamber. The GA can run itself how it sees fit without that impacting the target resolution. If the lack of reciprocal recognition were a substantial issue, perhaps it would have prevented the target from being passed. That appears not the case.

This is a very superficial argument. First of all, "regions" (the NS game function) can't even be mentioned in the GA.

Yep, that would be what I said - third sentence of the second reply. The inability to recognise regions is a big boon to allowing the two chambers to operate harmoniously, and a tremendous blow to your argument.

GAR#2 absolutely makes raiding illegal. R/D is "war" as far as NationStates is concerned.

This is bizarre if the repeal is based on IC compatibility; the GA cannot recognise r/d because it is a metagame. It's not possible to just say "Well of course this is war", the Compliance Commission cannot even know of it to reach that conclusion.

As stated previously the GA regards nations and the SC regard regions. The GA has no capacity to deal with regions or the metagame, the SC has no capacity to liberate or destroy nations. They are separate entities with separate scopes and none of this changes if the SC acknowledges that the GA exists.

Of course, none of that matters because the mods don't care about what "recognition of the General Assembly" means, what the consequences of this resolution are, etc.

Or more likely your entire argument is centred around whether or not "war" relates to nations or regions in the GA, and every practical understanding says that this is not the case.

[Waldenes]

OOC: I’m a bit of a n00b when it comes to all of this, so perhaps my opinion lacks experience. That being said, it sounds to me like, since the target is an SC declaration, the target only really affects the SC, and that the GA is not bound by it.

Or am I missing something?

[Sandaoguo]

You’re really stretching to apply a bunch of stuff specifically targeted at nations to R/D - if I raid a region with my buddies, I’ve not declared war on the nations in that region (because I generally don’t care about them. If I eject them, they retain their territorial sovereignty (as regions are not nations).

Don't know how else to explain that regions are made of nations, and it's nations that do things. If Osiris goes to war against Lazarus, it's nations (players) in Osiris going to war against nations (players) in Lazarus.

That the GA can’t mention regions hardly makes it logical to apply everything about nations to regions, when the entire resolution is written applying to nations as nations.

The SC is the one that's decided to recognize the General Assembly's entire law book and said everybody is expected to follow those laws. The SC is a Gameplay entity that now must follow laws passed by a roleplaying-based GA. So yes, you do actually have to find a way to make those laws work for the SC, because the SC has said the GA is equal in power and all laws are expected to be followed.

That you're having difficulty seeing how GAR#2 would apply in a non-roleplaying context is exactly my point in why the Declaration should never have been legal in the first place. The kicker here is that it's not as if the SC can clarify this by saying, "GA laws only have to be followed when roleplaying" because the SC's own weird quasi-metagaming rules don't allow you to acknowledge that SC is Gameplay in the first place (and thus there's a distinction to be made at all).

They are separate entities with separate scopes and none of this changes if the SC acknowledges that the GA exists.

The SC isn't just recognizing that the GA exists as a game entity (which btw would be illegal anyways) where role-players write their roleplaying laws. The SC has said "the GA is of equal power, we recognize their laws as laws, and if you join the WA you're expected to follow all of them." You can't reconcile this by just saying "oh well the SC deals in regions" (which isn't true) "and the GA deals in nations, and never the twain shall meet." The SC cannot acknowledge that it's a Gameplay-focused entity. It can't recognize a "region" as a Gameplay entity, in order to separate that conceptually from the laws of the GA.

Nations are located within regions, and sometimes those nations in a region organize into supra-national governments. It's all nations. It's not possible, within the current SC rules, to recognize or acknowledge some game-level separation between the Gameplay-focus of the SC and the roleplay-focus of the GA, and say those difference self-evidently prevent issues. You have to actually grapple with the fact that the SC has now given GA resolutions equal status and power, and said all WA members are expected to follow them. Not expected to follow them... "in a roleplaying sense." There's no distinction made, and no distinction possible. So now the SC does have to figure out how it's going to respect this Declaration when it's dealing with C&Cs and Liberations. How is the SC going to maintain neutrality in civil and international strife? Nobody really thought of that before passing (or declaring legal) a Declaration saying that law is expected to be followed.

[Sedgistan]

You're still struggling with the fact that Declarations do not legislate - they only express an opinion, with no obligation for anyone - including future SC authors - to follow that opinion.

And really, if GA rules did somehow now apply to raiding/defending, what's the issue? The GA managed to get its head around non-compliance being possible several years ago.

[The Random Thief]

Good arguments in favor of keeping this bill around may exist, but so far they haven't shown up in this thread. I'm in support of repealing this. As for why, I'll just quote Sedgistan, since he already articulated it well.

What is it with a certain subset of General Assembly players being so insistent that the only way they can function is to ignore the Security Council - yet simultaneously coming into the Security Council to repeatedly insist that it does as they wish?