[Withdrawn] Condemn Baggieland

[Guess and Check]

Didnt give feedback because in general haven t been in an sc mood lately till now, and I do agree this is rushing it, but either way good luck!

You are rushing this to vote. I support it, but seven days is not nearly enough for a new author unless the target is at imminent risk of CTE.

Havent seen experienced authors ever submit a proposal within a week either xD

[The Forest of Aeneas]

OOC: ^ noted, I'm pushing back on submission for a while anyway.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

/bump

[The Forest of Aeneas]

/bump

[Fachumonn]

Still support.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

OOC: Pushing back on submission until , in theory, the weekend, two days from now due to one proposal's submission.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'We have submitted this to the Security Council Condemnation Board.'

[Fachumonn]

This has been approved.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'As this may not reach quorum, should this fall from quorum we will resubmit this with a different campaign telegram but with little or no edits to the text of the proposal.'

[Quebecshire]

What makes you think that the proposals struggles aren’t at least in part due to the text of the proposal itself?

[The Forest of Aeneas]

What makes you think that the proposals struggles aren’t at least in part due to the text of the proposal itself?

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'Mostly the quality (or lack thereof) of the campaign telegram, and that the main struggle of this is from getting approvals (with most minor delegates rarely reading approved proposals in full). Unless further edits are provided by other delegations, this will be resubmitted as in the updated OP of this discussion.'

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'As this may not reach quorum, should this fall from quorum we will resubmit this with a different campaign telegram but with little or no edits to the text of the proposal.'

I don’t think it’s the telegram that’s at fault. Lot of fluff, lot of filler in this proposal. I will certainly be voting against it should it get to the vote.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Glad to see this fail. Baggieland’s interests align highly with ours and we do not wish to see likeminded nations shunned.

[Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands]

Still opposed. Not so much because of the contributions listed (though still not enough for a commend/condemn imo) or the filler (which is a bit much), but this whole ‘wink wink nudge nudge’ BS is really annoying. A rule is a rule - and it’s not a random arbitrary one as the moderators have loosened it multiple times already to allow other issues to be included in proposals. There is a reason the rule is enforced, so please stop trying to pretend it doesn’t exist. If you think the rule is nonsensical, create a thread in moderation to ask them to review it (though I know the answer is going to be NO, and that will say a lot on whether the rule is arbitrary).

Just because the World Assembly has passed resolutions in the past to do something doesn’t make it a great idea. If that was true, then we wouldn’t need repeals. I’d advise you to drop this.

[Baggieland]

we will resubmit this with a different campaign telegram but with little or no edits to the text of the proposal.

Unless further edits are provided by other delegations, this will be resubmitted as in the updated OP of this discussion.

I wouldn't resubmit this until a few alterations have been made. I'll TG you in a few days with some possible new ideas.

but this whole ‘wink wink nudge nudge’ BS is really annoying.

Just out of curiosity, as I don't "play" the Security Council, what's a 'wink, wink. nudge, nudge' violation?

[Honeydewistania]

It’s not technically a violation, really. The author is attempting the pass the proposal on the basis of contributions that cannot legally be stated, so they are ‘unmentionables‘. Hence, they are winking and nudging at voters, if that makes sense.

Also, hi Baggie

[Baggieland]

Also, hi Baggie

Hi Honey!

The author is attempting the pass the proposal on the basis of contributions that cannot legally be stated, so they are ‘unmentionables‘

Why were the mention of my issues submitted (before and after I became an editor) illegal?

Nations such as Free Joy State and Aussie Republic were condemned based on issues submitted.

Just curious as to how the security council works!

[Adirondack Chair]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Glad to see this fail. Baggieland’s interests align highly with ours and we do not wish to see likeminded nations shunned.

I've been reading some WA Forum threads and you are a little mean to people. Well, Dr. Justin Obama is.

[Honeydewistania]

Why were the mention of my issues submitted (before and after I became an editor) illegal?

Nations such as Free Joy State and Aussie Republic were condemned based on issues submitted.

Just curious as to how the security council works!

The mention of issues submitted before and after you became editor are the legal ones - and hence the ones listed in the proposal. It’s the ones that were submitted as editor that are illegal, and that’s what the author is alluding to by citing ‘30’ issues as the number in their campaign telegrams in debates, but not in the proposal itself as that would be illegal.

Hope this helps!

[Baggieland]

The mention of issues submitted before and after you became editor are the legal ones - and hence the ones listed in the proposal. It’s the ones that were submitted as editor that are illegal, and that’s what the author is alluding to by citing ‘30’ issues as the number in their campaign telegrams in debates, but not in the proposal itself as that would be illegal

Okay, thanks Honey. I never saw that TG, so was unaware of the content.

One more question:

or the filler (which is a bit much),

Does "filler" refer to the 5 issues mentioned, or the repetition of "secret agents", or the mention of stuff I've RPed such as spraying wolf repellent into a child's face?

[Honeydewistania]

Yes, I personally think the secret agents thing is a bit tiresome and I see it as filler (though this has been done by many other previous authors, myself included, so that’s why I’m not too bothered about it)

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'As this may not reach quorum, should this fall from quorum we will resubmit this with a different campaign telegram but with little or no edits to the text of the proposal.'

I don’t think it’s the telegram that’s at fault. Lot of fluff, lot of filler in this proposal. I will certainly be voting against it should it get to the vote.

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'Noted.'

we will resubmit this with a different campaign telegram but with little or no edits to the text of the proposal.

Unless further edits are provided by other delegations, this will be resubmitted as in the updated OP of this discussion.

I wouldn't resubmit this until a few alterations have been made. I'll TG you in a few days with some possible new ideas.

OOC: Replied via telegram

Still opposed. Not so much because of the contributions listed (though still not enough for a commend/condemn imo) or the filler (which is a bit much), but this whole ‘wink wink nudge nudge’ BS is really annoying. A rule is a rule - and it’s not a random arbitrary one as the moderators have loosened it multiple times already to allow other issues to be included in proposals.

OOC: It's not really a relevant point that it used to be stricter.

There is a reason the rule is enforced, so please stop trying to pretend it doesn’t exist.

I'm not pretending it doesn't exist. If I did pretend it didn't exist, then I'd certainly have included issues like Sheepish Students, Total Eclipse of the Brain, and Pink Is The New Orange, and would have mentioned that there's 30 issues, which would be illegal.

If you think the rule is nonsensical, create a thread in moderation to ask them to review it (though I know the answer is going to be NO, and that will say a lot on whether the rule is arbitrary).

There is no need? It would be nice, but when 'wink wink nudge nudge' can legally happen - and has legally happened, twice - there isn't really a compelling need for the rule to be removed.

Just because the World Assembly has passed resolutions in the past to do something doesn’t make it a great idea. If that was true, then we wouldn’t need repeals.

Then go repeal SC#333 and SC#235. It'll be hard to pass, but if you succeed, at least there won't be a standing precedent of 'wink wink nudge nudge' around 3.a.

Ultimately, it's unfair to refuse to recognise via the WA the best contributors to the game via issues; players who demonstrate proficiency early on in writing issues are obviously the ones most likely to become editors early on, and also the ones most likely to earn an entire WA law dedicated to them. If the WA adopts your viewpoint, this means that the best contributors to Issues cannot get commendation or condemnation badges, no matter how deserved; there is, after all, a reason that the resolution commending the most significant issues author in history can only legally mention three issues.

Edit: Also, sorry if this response came off as too harsh.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

I don’t think it’s the telegram that’s at fault. Lot of fluff, lot of filler in this proposal. I will certainly be voting against it should it get to the vote.

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'Noted.'

My comment was made OOC, as all mine are - kindly respond as such.

[Honeydewistania]

snip

There is no point arguing with this anymore. I would have better results talking to a brick wall.

Considering that the nominee themselves have come into the thread to ask you to withdraw, I’d suggest actually doing that.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

OOC: Withdrawn. I had been under the impression that the nominee was fine with this not being withdrawn - not an excuse, just an explanation. Not sure if I will continue working on this.