[DRAFT] Repeal: "Commend August"

[WayNeacTia]

I don't like August's IC stances, think his bot is spyware and especially dislike N Day. Despite all this, he deserves a commend, if not multiple for his other actions onsite, primarily for region building.

The draft, as others said, is from players who can't cope with the fact that August doesn't like them. No one is forced to like others.

Oh my god. I have nothing to do with August. I just think his commend is shit.

Then write a repeal that isn't and we can talk.

[The Python]

Against due to author.

As I said earlier today, that is arguably the silliest argument against just about anything that is still thrown around and way more common that it should be.

[RiderSyl]

Against due to author.

As I said earlier today, that is arguably the silliest argument against just about anything that is still thrown around and way more common that it should be.

At this rate someone's going to post "Against due to author and Python can't stop me".

[A Bloodred Moon]

As I said earlier today, that is arguably the silliest argument against just about anything that is still thrown around and way more common that it should be.

At this rate someone's going to post "Against due to author and Python can't stop me".

Against due to Python.

Hi there. This draft is not politically motivated.

I am with Melons that it seems highly probable that you are assuming you will carry votes resulting from dislike for August’s recent comments. Probably not a bad guess but adding a disclaimer that it is not motivated by any such thing does not help your case - now you don’t just look political, you also look dishonest. Had you wanted to avoid looking political, you should have waited.

Regardless of whether it’s politically motivated or not, this draft does not offer a convincing reason for a repeal as far as I’m concerned. You point out some flaws within the proposal, and while I agree that some are valid points I don’t see anything glaring enough to warrant a repeal on its own. If you intended to replace it with a better one, it’d be a stronger case, but that seemingly isn’t the intent.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Hi there. This draft is not politically motivated.

Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce.

Standard layout for any C&C, Liberation or Repeal is to list reasons and then finish the proposal with the operative clause "Hereby ........"

[Comfed]

August’s commendation is not very well written. This is also not very well written.

[Outer Sparta]

Against due to author.

As I said earlier today, that is arguably the silliest argument against just about anything that is still thrown around and way more common that it should be.

The author has made drafts that don't make good repeal points and are full of fluff? Maybe if this draft is much better in having good repeal points and whatnot, then people might support it, but that's if the author puts in the work to make a quality repeal proposal (and perhaps lobby for a replacement or do it themselves).

[Quebecshire]

Hi there. This draft is not politically motivated.

Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce.

Standard layout for any C&C, Liberation or Repeal is to list reasons and then finish the proposal with the operative clause "Hereby ........"

I believe Minsk wanted to experiment with putting the operative prior to the reasoning. That said, I don't see why that would be a hill worth dying on so I'll talk to him about revising that to fix the normal format.

[Thousand Branches]

Heya, just have a couple of suggestions regarding wordsmithing and the such.

Acknowledging August’s accomplishments including founding the Augustin Alliance (AA), comprised of 4 incredibly successful regions with a combined voting power of over 400, a very impressive feat matched by few,

I would put some kind of descriptor word before "accomplishments". Perhaps something like "numerous"? Also before "comprised", I'd put something like "an alliance" or "an association", because without that, the transition there is a little choppy. Finally, is the "a very impressive feat matched by few" bit necessary? I think it would read better without it and it's pretty clear that that is a really impressive feat without having to say it.

Believing that August, by its accomplishments and that of its satellite states, may indeed be worthy of a commendation, though that the current resolution is inadequate in many ways,

I would change "by" to "through both". Also "though that the current resolution is inadequate in many ways," sounds really weird to me? I'd do something more like "but similarly believing the current resolution to be inadequate in several ways". That's just my thoughts on it, but either way "though that" is grammatically incorrect, it would be "although" if you just wanted to switch that.

The Security Council nonetheless repeals [resolution=SC#228]Commend August[/resolution] (SC#228) for the following reasons:

"Nonetheless" is a really weird adverb (I think that's an adverb) to have there. Didn't you already note in the last clause that you believed the commend to be repeal-able?

Other interesting option though, you could take the second half of that last clause that reads really weird and combine it here instead. Have the last clause just end with "commendation" and then start this one by saying you believe it is repealable. That might fit really well too because then it would be attached to the list of reasons.

Something like "Knowing however, that the current resolution is inadequate, The Security Council repeals [resolution=SC#228]Commend August[/resolution] (SC#228) for the following reasons:

Just a thought ^-^

SC#228 mentions Narnia as if it were on par with the other 4 regions it mentions being in the Augustin Alliance: Narnia was inactive from the beginning, with the Delegate's endorsement count peaking at 11 and steadily going downhill.

As a small note outside of wordsmithing, why does this matter? Is it bad that the region was mentioned if it's technically part of AA? Maybe I'm reading that wrong but this seems a little frivolous.

SC#228 includes a clause on how Ridgefield achieved 200 nations when at the time the world contained 60,000; currently, this would translate to 750 nations. 28 regions are at this level, including 19 non-feeders/non-sinkers, and 13 non-puppet regions. Furthermore, comparing region size to world size says nothing about the accomplishments of the aforementioned region.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure why the stats are important, I'd instead make a bigger focus on the furthermore bit. In terms of basic stuff, size of a region is not necessarily commendable and that seems like a better point to make than... whatever the point you're trying to make with the stats is. I'd reword this clause.

Half of SC#228 is unnecessary fluff; a quarter being an explanation of the themes of the AA, which isn’t commendable in the slightest, and another quarter being restatements of the fact that the 5 regions it mentions forms August’s Augustin Alliance (led by August).

This might be a me thing but "Half" seems very like exact? It obviously probably isn't exactly half the resolution so something more abstract like "a large chunk" might work better? I guess it works with the quarters but you could probably make those less exact as well? This is definitely a tiny nitpick so feel free to laugh at me

Inexplicably, 2 of SC#228’s 14 bullet points use (differing) punctuation while the rest do not, a clear oversight.

Okay another note here to say ??? I know I care about wording a lot but this isn't really something to repeal a resolution over.

The “Acknowledging” clause of SC#288 is inarticulate and attempts to give credit to the nominee for the community development of the Augustin Alliance’s regions, something only achievable by community-wide efforts.

If you weren't doing this as a list, I would say you should start this clause with acknowledging to be funny Other than that, this clause is pretty good.

SC#228 references the Joint Task Force, the military of the AA, and its commendable destruction of Union of the Fascist Nations. It then fluffs the same clause by mentioning its “participation in the ‘defense and liberation of multiple regions,’” which is rather commonplace and cannot be solely attributed to the AA and thus don’t belong in the commendation of its Founder. Moreover, it misspells a region it mentions a bullet point above.

Region tag for Union of the Fascist Nations? Additionally, "fluffs" is not really a good verb there? Actually I think that whole sentence could probably be worded better. Speaking of which, "don't" should be "doesn't". The moreover sentence also seems kind of unnecessary, but I guess that one is opinion.

It notes how Ridgefield was once entirely composed of WA nations; both a feat accomplished in mere seconds and, for Ridgefield’s scale, accomplishable by virtually every Border Controls Officer.

"it" should be "SC#228" if you're keeping in the same line as the rest of the list. The semicolon should also be a comma as the rest of that is not a separate sentence. Also there's no context here as to what a Border Controls Officer is, so this kind of makes no sense.

Hopefully this is helpful and as usual, have a beautiful day,

-A

[The Python]

As I said earlier today, that is arguably the silliest argument against just about anything that is still thrown around and way more common that it should be.

The author has made drafts that don't make good repeal points and are full of fluff? Maybe if this draft is much better in having good repeal points and whatnot, then people might support it, but that's if the author puts in the work to make a quality repeal proposal (and perhaps lobby for a replacement or do it themselves).

I certainly don't disagree that this draft needs lots of work. What I take issue with is "against due to author" still being used as an argument (and likely just to score points even).

[Minskiev]

Oh my god. I have nothing to do with August. I just think his commend is shit.

Then write a repeal that isn't and we can talk.

I can always make edits, but I plan to write more.

At this rate someone's going to post "Against due to author and Python can't stop me".

Against due to Python.

Hi there. This draft is not politically motivated.

I am with Melons that it seems highly probable that you are assuming you will carry votes resulting from dislike for August’s recent comments. Probably not a bad guess but adding a disclaimer that it is not motivated by any such thing does not help your case - now you don’t just look political, you also look dishonest. Had you wanted to avoid looking political, you should have waited.

Regardless of whether it’s politically motivated or not, this draft does not offer a convincing reason for a repeal as far as I’m concerned. You point out some flaws within the proposal, and while I agree that some are valid points I don’t see anything glaring enough to warrant a repeal on its own. If you intended to replace it with a better one, it’d be a stronger case, but that seemingly isn’t the intent.

I haven't really figured it out yet. I guess I'll get back to you, though.

Hi there. This draft is not politically motivated.

Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce.

Standard layout for any C&C, Liberation or Repeal is to list reasons and then finish the proposal with the operative clause "Hereby ........"

I'm aware of the standard layout.

August’s commendation is not very well written. This is also not very well written.

Would you like to elaborate?

Heya, just have a couple of suggestions regarding wordsmithing and the such.

Acknowledging August’s accomplishments including founding the Augustin Alliance (AA), comprised of 4 incredibly successful regions with a combined voting power of over 400, a very impressive feat matched by few,

I would put some kind of descriptor word before "accomplishments". Perhaps something like "numerous"? Also before "comprised", I'd put something like "an alliance" or "an association", because without that, the transition there is a little choppy. Finally, is the "a very impressive feat matched by few" bit necessary? I think it would read better without it and it's pretty clear that that is a really impressive feat without having to say it.

Hmm...yeah. These are good suggestions, thanks.

Believing that August, by its accomplishments and that of its satellite states, may indeed be worthy of a commendation, though that the current resolution is inadequate in many ways,

I would change "by" to "through both". Also "though that the current resolution is inadequate in many ways," sounds really weird to me? I'd do something more like "but similarly believing the current resolution to be inadequate in several ways". That's just my thoughts on it, but either way "though that" is grammatically incorrect, it would be "although" if you just wanted to switch that.

Alright.

The Security Council nonetheless repeals [resolution=SC#228]Commend August[/resolution] (SC#228) for the following reasons:

"Nonetheless" is a really weird adverb (I think that's an adverb) to have there. Didn't you already note in the last clause that you believed the commend to be repeal-able?

I think the believing clause was a later addition and I didn't account for a change of flow. Fair.

Other interesting option though, you could take the second half of that last clause that reads really weird and combine it here instead. Have the last clause just end with "commendation" and then start this one by saying you believe it is repealable. That might fit really well too because then it would be attached to the list of reasons.

Something like "Knowing however, that the current resolution is inadequate, The Security Council repeals [resolution=SC#228]Commend August[/resolution] (SC#228) for the following reasons:

Just a thought ^-^

Sure!

SC#228 mentions Narnia as if it were on par with the other 4 regions it mentions being in the Augustin Alliance: Narnia was inactive from the beginning, with the Delegate's endorsement count peaking at 11 and steadily going downhill.

As a small note outside of wordsmithing, why does this matter? Is it bad that the region was mentioned if it's technically part of AA? Maybe I'm reading that wrong but this seems a little frivolous.

Well, the main 4 regions of the AA are very prestigious, and Narnia wasn't quite so much.

SC#228 includes a clause on how Ridgefield achieved 200 nations when at the time the world contained 60,000; currently, this would translate to 750 nations. 28 regions are at this level, including 19 non-feeders/non-sinkers, and 13 non-puppet regions. Furthermore, comparing region size to world size says nothing about the accomplishments of the aforementioned region.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure why the stats are important, I'd instead make a bigger focus on the furthermore bit. In terms of basic stuff, size of a region is not necessarily commendable and that seems like a better point to make than... whatever the point you're trying to make with the stats is. I'd reword this clause.

Alright.

Half of SC#228 is unnecessary fluff; a quarter being an explanation of the themes of the AA, which isn’t commendable in the slightest, and another quarter being restatements of the fact that the 5 regions it mentions forms August’s Augustin Alliance (led by August).

This might be a me thing but "Half" seems very like exact? It obviously probably isn't exactly half the resolution so something more abstract like "a large chunk" might work better? I guess it works with the quarters but you could probably make those less exact as well? This is definitely a tiny nitpick so feel free to laugh at me

I did run it through a character count. It's a little over half, actually.

Inexplicably, 2 of SC#228’s 14 bullet points use (differing) punctuation while the rest do not, a clear oversight.

Okay another note here to say ??? I know I care about wording a lot but this isn't really something to repeal a resolution over.

Eh, maybe. It's just a little weird. But alright, I'll take that out.

The “Acknowledging” clause of SC#288 is inarticulate and attempts to give credit to the nominee for the community development of the Augustin Alliance’s regions, something only achievable by community-wide efforts.

If you weren't doing this as a list, I would say you should start this clause with acknowledging to be funny Other than that, this clause is pretty good.

Yay.

SC#228 references the Joint Task Force, the military of the AA, and its commendable destruction of Union of the Fascist Nations. It then fluffs the same clause by mentioning its “participation in the ‘defense and liberation of multiple regions,’” which is rather commonplace and cannot be solely attributed to the AA and thus don’t belong in the commendation of its Founder. Moreover, it misspells a region it mentions a bullet point above.

Region tag for Union of the Fascist Nations? Additionally, "fluffs" is not really a good verb there? Actually I think that whole sentence could probably be worded better. Speaking of which, "don't" should be "doesn't". The moreover sentence also seems kind of unnecessary, but I guess that one is opinion.

Was don't always wrong? Maybe I took a part out and forgot to change that...but yeah, I'll use your suggestions, I think.

It notes how Ridgefield was once entirely composed of WA nations; both a feat accomplished in mere seconds and, for Ridgefield’s scale, accomplishable by virtually every Border Controls Officer.

"it" should be "SC#228" if you're keeping in the same line as the rest of the list. The semicolon should also be a comma as the rest of that is not a separate sentence. Also there's no context here as to what a Border Controls Officer is, so this kind of makes no sense.

Hmm...okay.

Hopefully this is helpful and as usual, have a beautiful day,

-A

This was! Thanks for this.

[Twertis]

This repeal is very problematic. Yes, some parts need improving, but Commend August was very good for the time (see other 2017 drafts), and you haven’t even got a replacement.

[Polder Eiland]

As the author of the resolution, I’ve got to say I don’t really see the merit in this repeal.

[Abacathea]

I'd love to vote for this because August doesn't deserve a commendation, especially after recent events, but unfortunately:

3. Against due to author.

Quebec, you can do better than this and I'm certain the proposal would be better if you'd authored it yourself.

You are the LAST person who can adopt that position

[RiderSyl]

I'd love to vote for this because August doesn't deserve a commendation, especially after recent events, but unfortunately:

3. Against due to author.

Quebec, you can do better than this and I'm certain the proposal would be better if you'd authored it yourself.

You are the LAST person who can adopt that position

Explain

[Abacathea]

You are the LAST person who can adopt that position

Explain

Considering how polarizing a player Cormac once was himself? I think it’s somewhat self explanatory no?

[RiderSyl]

Explain

Considering how polarizing a player Cormac once was himself? I think it’s somewhat self explanatory no?

How does that invalidate his position though? If anything, it makes him an expert on the subject.