NationStates

Hello everyone. First draft proposal here and looking for comments before submitting.

I will be submitting under this puppet due to WA multi rules. Would have posted on my main otherwise.

Security Council Resolution # 366 "Liberate New Western Atlantic" shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The Security Council

Acknowledging that the intent of Security Council Resolution #366 (SCR #366) was to open up the region New Western Atlantic (NWA) to the control of the international community.

Understanding that the purpose of the previously mentioned resolution has been carried out through an occupation of the region led by the interregional military organisation Antifa.

Asserting that permanent control of the region by the international community cannot be achieved until its current status as liberated has been repealed.

Further maintaining that a repeal of SCR #366 does not in any way disprove the claims it had made.

Acknowledging the possibility of the founder returning to the region as it has not been vaporised in any act of a deity, but confident that the international community will reinstate the region’s liberated status if this ever occurs.

Hereby Repeals SC #366: Liberate New Western Atlantic

Full support.

I don't see an issue, and support this.

I'll support this, but not until the influence needed to successfully refound is in hand. Ask again in a few months.

For clarity, what is your main identity?

Otherwise, support when NWA is in a position to get locked down as Hulldom said.

Apatosaurus wrote:For clarity, what is your main identity?

Otherwise, support when NWA is in a position to get locked down as Hulldom said.

Does YELLING, while repeating the exact same thing Hulldom just said really accomplish anything?

Agreed with Hulldom, doesn't seem like a good time to repeal it because we could end up in "Liberate New Western Atlantic Part 2."

Apatosaurus wrote:For clarity, what is your main identity?

It's Waterfall State, if I'm not mistaken.

Full support once NWA is able to be locked down

Thanks for the comments, I intend to submit this closer to when we are ready.

Still looking for other comments relating to the content in the meantime if anyone has any.

Content wise it looks fine. The only real objections I would have would be the last clause (how?) and that you need to remove “the” before permanent in the “Stating” clause.

Hulldom wrote:I'll support this, but not until the influence needed to successfully refound is in hand. Ask again in a few months.

Why exactly are we trying to tell one of the ROs (who is literally raiding the region) when they can and can not repeal the liberation?

Short res, short(ish) edits

Unfinished Paperwork wrote:Acknowledging that the intent of Security Council Resolution #366 is to open up the region New Western Atlantic (NWA) under the control of the international community.

Perhaps a small persnickety little thing but the “is” might be a “was” considering the intent is now to repeal it and therefore no longer to open up the region, yes?

Unfinished Paperwork wrote:Understanding that the purpose of the previously mentioned resolution has been fulfilled through an occupation of the region led by the interregional military organisation Antifa.

Just for cool words, I think “fulfilled” might be cooler as “carried out”.

Unfinished Paperwork wrote:Stating that the permanent control of the region under the international community cannot be achieved until this region’s liberated status has been repealed by this august body.

“Stating” is a terrible word here. Perhaps “affirming” or “asserting” or “declaring” but there should be a sense of declaring the truth of this statement not just “stating” which implies you’re just saying it and it could very well not be true.

Same comment as Hulldom with removing the “the” before “permanent”.

Also “this region’s” could probably just be “its” tbh. You already noted that it was the region earlier in the clause. Similarly, you might change “liberated status” to “current status as liberated”. Also “by this august body” is unnecessary and a tad cliched. I’d just remove it altogether.

Unfinished Paperwork wrote:Recognising that the repeal of this resolution does not in any way disprove the claims of the mentioned resolution.

Again, “recognizing” is such a weirdly neutral stance on this point. I’d love to see something like “further maintaining”, that’d be pretty dang cool.

First “the” would be better as “a”.

“the mentioned resolution” could just be “SCR#366” or something to that effect. Otherwise it sounds a bit weird with having “resolution” twice in such a short clause.

Unfinished Paperwork wrote:Acknowledging that there is a possibility of the founder returning to the region as it has not been vaporised in any act of a deity, and confident that this august body can reinstate the region’s liberated status if this occurs.

Uh hmm hmm yeah I don’t like this. Let’s do some edits.

“that there is a” should be “the”

“as it has not been vaporized in any act of a deity,” is totally unnecessary and creates a big wall in the middle of this resolution that is both confusing itself and makes everything else around it equally confusing. If you really felt the need to include it for some reason, smack it in some parentheses but I’d just cut it out.

“can” is a weird one. Obviously the SC can instill a liberation on any region. Instead of mentioning the Security Council, say something about the international community voting for it. Change the vote of confidence. Literally the change would just be “this august body can” becomes “the international community will”

“if this occurs” should be “if this ever occurs” or “if this should occur”.

Hope this was helpful and have a bangin day ^-^

-A

Varanius wrote:

Hulldom wrote:I'll support this, but not until the influence needed to successfully refound is in hand. Ask again in a few months.

Why exactly are we trying to tell one of the ROs (who is literally raiding the region) when they can and can not repeal the liberation?

Because it is perfectly rational, when considering whether or not to support the repeal of an offensive liberation against an OOC yucky region whose founder feasibly could return, to expect communication & explanation from both the author & Antifa with regards to when sufficient influence has been accrued to successfully refound the region. And looking at the current influence situation in NWA, that point is a long, long, long way off. https://www.nationstates.net/page=list_ ... ensusid=65

Not particularly difficult to figure out.

Andusre wrote:

Varanius wrote: Why exactly are we trying to tell one of the ROs (who is literally raiding the region) when they can and can not repeal the liberation?

Because it is perfectly rational, when considering whether or not to support the repeal of an offensive liberation against an OOC yucky region whose founder feasibly could return, to expect communication & explanation from both the author & Antifa with regards to when sufficient influence has been accrued to successfully refound the region. And looking at the current influence situation in NWA, that point is a long, long, long way off. https://www.nationstates.net/page=list_ ... ensusid=65

Not particularly difficult to figure out.

If the founder could have returned, they could return whether or not the region was liberated. It’s also not hard to figure out that, given the lack of angry yelling from people like Honeydew, Xoriet, or Vippetooth, this proposal was likely one they were aware of, if not approved of. It’s fairly silly to attempt the overrule the judgement of the people raiding the region, in particular by someone who is not an R/Der (BC). I have no idea my post was so important you felt the need to march out and snark at it, but welcome to the thread. If you wouldn’t mind, posts with some degree of value are probably preferable to whatever that attempt at a snipe at me was. Cheers!

It is if your mission is to ensure that region is forever out of the reach of the NWE and its folks.

(Though I will note that Xor explained the mechanics now. I understand them, but I'd still like to wait a little bit before repealing this.)

Andusre wrote:

Varanius wrote: Why exactly are we trying to tell one of the ROs (who is literally raiding the region) when they can and can not repeal the liberation?

Because it is perfectly rational, when considering whether or not to support the repeal of an offensive liberation against an OOC yucky region whose founder feasibly could return, to expect communication & explanation from both the author & Antifa with regards to when sufficient influence has been accrued to successfully refound the region. And looking at the current influence situation in NWA, that point is a long, long, long way off. https://www.nationstates.net/page=list_ ... ensusid=65

Not particularly difficult to figure out.

That’s good and all, but Hulldom didn’t ask that. All he did was express strong disapproval of the timing of the proposal based on his own misunderstandings of R/D mechanics. If an RO of the op itself decides a certain time is the best time to proposal a repeal, unless there’s something obviously wrong about it I don’t think people like Apatosaurus with no connection to the OP should go around saying "AGAINST!"

Not particularly difficult to figure out.

(Also, yes, we’re a long long long way off. Maybe you can do us a favour and drop your WA in here instead of leaving it stewing in Thaecia )

Varanius wrote:

Andusre wrote:Because it is perfectly rational, when considering whether or not to support the repeal of an offensive liberation against an OOC yucky region whose founder feasibly could return, to expect communication & explanation from both the author & Antifa with regards to when sufficient influence has been accrued to successfully refound the region. And looking at the current influence situation in NWA, that point is a long, long, long way off. https://www.nationstates.net/page=list_ ... ensusid=65

Not particularly difficult to figure out.

If the founder could have returned, they could return whether or not the region was liberated. It’s also not hard to figure out that, given the lack of angry yelling from people like Honeydew, Xoriet, or Vippetooth, this proposal was likely one they were aware of, if not approved of. It’s fairly silly to attempt the overrule the judgement of the people raiding the region, in particular by someone who is not an R/Der (BC). I have no idea my post was so important you felt the need to march out and snark at it, but welcome to the thread. If you wouldn’t mind, posts with some degree of value are probably preferable to whatever that attempt at a snipe at me was. Cheers!

I'm not really sure I buy much of this logic. By any metric of assessment, the operation will not be over any time soon/in the foreseeable future. Sure, an RO can hypothetically have some extra expertise/knowledge on that region, but that does not make them unquestionable in their decision-making. The author themselves has pretty much stated as much in their posts in this thread and in soliciting feedback from the SC community.

Xernon wrote:

Varanius wrote: If the founder could have returned, they could return whether or not the region was liberated. It’s also not hard to figure out that, given the lack of angry yelling from people like Honeydew, Xoriet, or Vippetooth, this proposal was likely one they were aware of, if not approved of. It’s fairly silly to attempt the overrule the judgement of the people raiding the region, in particular by someone who is not an R/Der (BC). I have no idea my post was so important you felt the need to march out and snark at it, but welcome to the thread. If you wouldn’t mind, posts with some degree of value are probably preferable to whatever that attempt at a snipe at me was. Cheers!

I'm not really sure I buy much of this logic. By any metric of assessment, the operation will not be over any time soon/in the foreseeable future. Sure, an RO can hypothetically have some extra expertise/knowledge on that region, but that does not make them unquestionable in their decision-making. The author themselves has pretty much stated as much in their posts in this thread and in soliciting feedback from the SC community.

I believe the author was asking for feedback on things like the wording, not on whether the proposal itself is valid. Also, the timing of the repeal, as far as I’m aware, has absolutely nothing to do with the raid. The founder can come back anyway, repealing the liberation doesn’t change that. I’m simply stating that perhaps yet another non-R/Der could have some basic level of trust not to attempt to overrule the people running the op on when the liberation can and can not be repealed.

I have edited the draft with Thousand Branches and Hulldom's suggestions.
-Re-edited the last part of the second last paragraph

As for the last paragraph, I used "vaporised in any act of a diety" to explain how it has not been DEAT-ed while not using that term (and probably because of me over explaining why the founder can return). I'm open to changing or removing it.

I have a small number of very minor suggestions for changes to the text.

Unfinished Paperwork wrote:Security Council Resolution # 366 "Liberate New Western Atlantic" shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The Security Council

Acknowledging that the intent of Security Council Resolution #366 (SCR #366) was to open up the region New Western Atlantic (NWA) under to the control of the international community.

Think this change reads better.

Unfinished Paperwork wrote:Understanding that the purpose of the previously mentioned resolution has been carried out through an occupation of the region led by the interregional military organisation Antifa

All good.

Unfinished Paperwork wrote:Asserting that permanent control of the region under by the international community cannot be achieved until its current status as liberated has been repealed.

Again a minor change to the wording.

Unfinished Paperwork wrote:Further maintaining that a repeal of SCR #366 does not in any way disprove the claims it had made.

No changes suggested here.

Unfinished Paperwork wrote:Acknowledging the possibility of the founder returning to the region as it has not been vaporised in any act of a deity, and but confident that the international community will reinstate the region’s liberated status if this ever occurs.

Hereby Repeals SC #366: Liberate New Western Atlantic

I'd keep the vapourised bit in as that is common SC-speak for a DEAT, just a minor change to the last bit of the clause.

As far as the timing is concerned I'm keeping well away from that.

Have made the changes as suggested by BBD. Thank you.

As for submission of this proposal, I will keep you guys updated here on when it will be submitted.

Unfinished Paperwork wrote:Have made the changes as suggested by BBD. Thank you.

As for submission of this proposal, I will keep you guys updated here on when it will be submitted.

Sounds good

Doesn't look like there is a problem with it