[SUBMITTED] Repeal Condemn Creeperopolis

[-Northumbria]

Ah, but see, that is where we come to bias. Your view is obviously in bias because it is your proposal. That is natural, sure. The issue is that you can not see beyond that bias and listen to what others have to say.

Point to me where this properly addresses the target, and where it brings relevant points as to why Creeper should not have his condemnation intact. In addition, show where the wording is direct and accurate in what is trying to be said.

I'll be waiting.

If you think you're on such a moral high-ground, maybe you should stop being baited by these threads every time, and don't give NN what they want by NOT responding.

How am I baiting anyone with this thread?

[Honeydewistania]

Support due to author

[The Orwell Society]

Support due to author

You're hilarious, Melons.

[Equai]

We are firmly opposing this resolution that doesn't address anything.

[-Northumbria]

We are firmly opposing this resolution that doesn't address anything.

It addresses the proposal at vote, actually.

[Equai]

Yes, it does Ambassador, but it doesn't address what about it is worthy of repealing. Name calling in the resolution to make it seem like there is bigger fish to fry while not actually contributing to what exact points in the resolution currently at vote at the Security Council should be addressed to make repeal worthy of even being debatable, let alone deconstructed.
We understand that your repeal proposal is still in the very early drafting phase and won't came onto the voting table for quite a while so we will follow it closely and see how it will, we hope, evolve and be able to be debated about and receive a better attention from the drafter.

[El Lazaro]

I’m pretty sure Northumbria is joking, but I feel bad for him if he’s not because everyone always shits on him. Full support so he can get a resolution passed.

[Equai]

I’m pretty sure Northumbria is joking, but I feel bad for him if he’s not because everyone always shits on him. Full support so he can get a resolution passed.

Well, I am sorry if he is joking. Its not very easy to distinguish jokes from serious talk over texts, so if he do in fact joke-post, I do apologize for being a bit too harsh

[Juansonia]

I’m pretty sure Northumbria is joking, but I feel bad for him if he’s not because everyone always shits on him. Full support so he can get a resolution passed.

Well, I am sorry if he is joking. Its not very easy to distinguish jokes from serious talk over texts, so if he do in fact joke-post, I do apologize for being a bit too harsh

He took his most recent joke so far that Sedge banned him from writing SC resolutions about Communism.

[Lenlyvit]

What Northumbria is writing isn't a joke in their eyes, they actually believe in what they're posting.

[-Northumbria]

Well, I am sorry if he is joking. Its not very easy to distinguish jokes from serious talk over texts, so if he do in fact joke-post, I do apologize for being a bit too harsh

He took his most recent joke so far that Sedge banned him from writing SC resolutions about Communism.

Yet he also approved my proposals as a delegate. Such a tsundere.

[Lile Ulie Islands]

Is this a proposal that is...supposed to be taken seriously? You should take a look at previously passed SC resolutions to get a feel for what the proposals this body holds are like.

[Equai]

Is this a proposal that is...supposed to be taken seriously? You should take a look at previously passed SC resolutions to get a feel for what the proposals this body holds are like.

TBF i don't f-ing know anymore-

[Onionist Randosia]

How is it a badge hunt? I was against it in the original thread. If I wanted a badge, don't you think my past proposals would have been ones easier to get support for?

1. Well, lots of nations do RMB RP and have wiki articles. But here it's about the supposedly condemnable things given as IC reasons:

1. Lots of nations have had coups and/or aren't democratic.
2. "cheap or unpaid labor"? By that standard, we need to condemn anyone who makes a slave storefront in GEAT.
3. Lots of nations have corruption. In fact, going off NS stats, there are sixteen hundred nations more corrupt than Creeperopolis. Should we condemn them too?
4. Persecution of political opponents, human rights violations, lack of due process, censorship, mass incarceration and overcrowded prisons, and assassinating people? None of these are particularly uncommon or, for that matter, deserving of special recognition by the SC.
5. Running an alliance? There are 1,746 results across the NS and II forums for threads with 'alliance' in the title.
6. An invasion? Wait until you browse II...
^ Even combined, the case for condemnation is incredibly weak when placed in a wider context.

2. Okay?
3. See 1.

It's not even about the medium at this point.

I will address the claim that Creeperopolis serves as an exceptional "somber, cautionary tale of tragedy" in another post, which will review the acts of nations that have been previously condemned for RP.

It might help if you put some of those nice facts and figures you got here into the actual proposal, rather than in a post that hypothetical (and improbable, tbh) future viewers of this as a passed resolution or at-quorum proposal are unlikely to go to this thread and look at. Summing these up as 'a lot of nations have done the same' is boring and exceedingly uninformative. Furthermore, saying that 'a lot of nations have done the same' and 'realizing that none of this is particularly exceptional' are essentially saying the same thing. TL,DR - You have a lot more convincing to do if you want this to have a chance of getting anywhere.

[Free Algerstonia]

What Northumbria is writing isn't a joke in their eyes, they actually believe in what they're posting.

i mean you also seem like the type of person to go to a comedy show and believe the comedian is being completely serious in everything they say

[El Lazaro]

What Northumbria is writing isn't a joke in their eyes, they actually believe in what they're posting.

i mean you also seem like the type of person to go to a comedy show and believe the comedian is being completely serious in everything they say

Please stop with the meta-irony, Alger. My head hurts.

[Nitrana]

This is better than most of the joke proposals, but in no way enough. Still, opposed.

[Sandaoguo]

The SC needs a rule against repeals that say "X isn't commendable/condemnable." The time to register that opinion is when the resolution is at vote.

[Sedgistan]

The SC needs a rule against repeals that say "X isn't commendable/condemnable." The time to register that opinion is when the resolution is at vote.

"X isn't commendable/condemnable" is what a repeal of a C/C is; every one will boil down to that. But the rules do require that the proposal contains reasons and addresses the arguments of the resolution it is attempting to repeal.

[WayNeacTia]

The SC needs a rule against repeals that say "X isn't commendable/condemnable." The time to register that opinion is when the resolution is at vote.

"X isn't commendable/condemnable" is what a repeal of a C/C is; every one will boil down to that. But the rules do require that the proposal contains reasons and addresses the arguments of the resolution it is attempting to repeal.

Which this clearly does not do....

[RemiorKami]

He took his most recent joke so far that Sedge banned him from writing SC resolutions about Communism.

Yet he also approved my proposals as a delegate. Such a tsundere.

I think he approves every legal proposal...

[Heavens Reach]

Opposed. Simple as that.

[Sandaoguo]

The SC needs a rule against repeals that say "X isn't commendable/condemnable." The time to register that opinion is when the resolution is at vote.

"X isn't commendable/condemnable" is what a repeal of a C/C is; every one will boil down to that. But the rules do require that the proposal contains reasons and addresses the arguments of the resolution it is attempting to repeal.

No, you just have an incredibly limited imagination and poor idea for good game rules. If somebody is commended, you would repeal that commendation if they do something in the future that tarnishes their legacy. Not a repeal that's just "actually I don't think any of that is commendable, and you all voted wrong, so let's try again."

Drafting up a repeal that amounts to nothing more than a re-vote is a waste of time and should be banned.

[WayNeacTia]

Yet he also approved my proposals as a delegate. Such a tsundere.

I think he approves every legal proposal...

The spirit of Jimmy Hart lives on.....

[Refuge Isle]

"X isn't commendable/condemnable" is what a repeal of a C/C is; every one will boil down to that. But the rules do require that the proposal contains reasons and addresses the arguments of the resolution it is attempting to repeal.

No, you just have an incredibly limited imagination and poor idea for good game rules. If somebody is commended, you would repeal that commendation if they do something in the future that tarnishes their legacy. Not a repeal that's just "actually I don't think any of that is commendable, and you all voted wrong, so let's try again."

Drafting up a repeal that amounts to nothing more than a re-vote is a waste of time and should be banned.

And yet we do those as a normal course of business. While a player carrying out acts that work against the arguments of their commendation or condemnation do happen, they are far less common than arguments that they were passed on a wave of undue populism or misleading arguments and that the nominee's actual merits are insufficient. Demanding that repeals be banned unless they follow your one-track reasoning is the thing that's limited imagination.