NATION

PASSWORD

Draft: Sanctions on Condemned Nations

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Ilharessa
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 155
Founded: Nov 16, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Ilharessa » Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:17 pm

I would like to thank the mod for the ruling on this one. It helps clarify a few things that cropped up.

Killerustan wrote:I've already proved it with resolution number 23. Furthermore, you are manipulating by stretching the requiring of WA member states to perform certain actions as metagaming and saying to make member states follow certain rules is the same as passing legislation on non-wa countries. It is not. We pass legislation on member states requiring actions all the time. The words you are reading about affecting non-member states only prevent a resolution that would for example say something along the lines of "non-member states are required to do x, y, and z" This is simple english and its wording is easily understood. it doesn't prevent us saying a member state can't give biological weapons to other states...some of which would obviously be non-member states. And I could show in numerous resolution similar restrictions on member states activities.

it doesn't prevent this:

Section 10. Goods produced, in whole or in part, through servitude shall be permanently embargoed, and all investment and material support to nations, legal entities and persons practicing servitude immediately ended, except as transition assistance or compensated manumission to free people from such conditions

And that is the same thing I want to do with the addition that I want to specify an arms embargo and cut of military assistance.


Now that I've had plenty of time to calm down and let a lost temper cool, I can respond to this with a less emotionally-charged argument.

For you, this is not a good thing. "Less emotionally charged" does not necessarily mean "nicer," nor does it mean that I will let go the items I had asked you to prove. The issue of their proof was independent of the mod ruling on the rules; as such, I shall try to be careful on the issue of the rules themselves and address only the arguments that apply.

When someone like me asks for proof, they want actual evidence. It's always better to provide it even if they don't want it and are just calling your bluff; that way, you have the ability to say that you did, indeed, prove it. The problem here is that evidence is a lot more than just a simple reposting of a bit of a resolution, especially when most of the charges you made had nothing to do with the resolution itself. That brings up a particular problem: As far as I can tell, of the four things I asked you to prove, you only appear to have addressed one and did not even provide any actual evidence to back your claim that you had proved it. You have not, as was specifically made clear by posts that followed. Just because I do not speak that plainly or use less complex thought, to the point that even I have to admit I have to cut it short and simplify it for the needs of basic communication, does not mean I was at any time attempting to twist words. Nor is it an indication of fallaciousness within an argument, an ulterior motive, or my opposition to it going beyond the rules. As Ardchoille rightly pointed out, I would not have argued this long on something I actually opposed extremely; I would have simply told you it's illegal, listed categories, and left the topic to decay naturally. I do think you have the basis of a good idea, but that your idea needs work... and, first, it was getting you to recognize the illegalities within the proposal.

I admit my approach was a little more hostile than normal. For one thing, try to ignore the hostility of Velnayanis; even I, the person who RPs her, have called her an, as I put it, "uppity bitch." That's because her personality is unpleasant to the point that not even I like her. However, she is good for the plot I have in mind elsewhere, if I ever get done writing it... In any case, my hostility itself not necessarily a good thing. On the other hand, my temper itself was not truly lost until you made those charges. At that point is when I decided to let you have it and back you into a corner. And, while my temper is calmed, we still have to deal with the fact there will be consequences from what was said. Nothing can avoid the fact that such consequences will come, even if we would rather they not.

Ultimately, if the entire thing had been IC, your making of the charges could be excused. Characters are just characters and can, as I have demonstrated, be very different from the people playing them. And politicians within the real world have proven repeatedly that they are fully capable of being adults with massive responsibilities and yet still act like a mixture two year olds and horny teenagers. The amount of petty bickering, temper tantrums, and libido-pleasing that goes on within realworld politics is enough to drive a sane man to chug barrels of vodka while snorting cocaine off the backs of puppies. It is no wonder that roleplayed politicians would be no different.

However, at that point, we were not roleplaying. We had descended into OOCness for quite some time. The fact I have been posting without quotation marks, despite the fact you normally see them everywhere within my posts in the World Assembly, is a sign it is the player speaking and not the character. You may have also noticed some differences in how I am choosing to present my argument, in that I drop the less simple style that I force upon myself for Velnayanis and instead choose to write as I speak. And I can see honesty in accusing my argument of being fallacious and myself of manipulating words. However, I cannot see any honest reasoning behind the charges of an ulterior motive and of my reason being far more than just rules violations. And that leaves me with the problem where I am forced to ask myself questions about if I trust not only that the proposal can be written within the rules, but the intentions and motivations of the author as well. The moment I find myself in a position where I am questioning whether or not you can be an honest person in this is the moment I know I cannot ever truly support it, as at that point my reasoning behind any position I take is shadowed by the questions of your own morality. I do not mean to cast aspirations at your character, but to present my own logic in this.

I am left within a difficult position. I do not oppose this being rewritten to be within the rules and legal. I do, however, oppose you doing the writing. Since at this point it is me the player taking an opinion and not my character, as usual, I find that this also ultimately presents a problem wherein the normal barriers of RP, which serve to keep my own person separate from the issues and actions of the character, have been broken down and left in a state where I am unsure if I can make a post in relation to this topic any further in an IC aspect without that IC aspect being colored by OOC opinion. Since the World Assembly is, to myself as the player, normally nothing more than something I can attach to for RP purposes and which serves no purpose I should OOCly care about, this presents a serious problem in that I do, as the player, actually have a stance on an issue within it for once. And, as you have seen, I usually can be quite intractable when I actually take a stance. I have been told I am as slow to move as a mountain; and just as difficult to get out of the way once I have moved.

I could try to end this by claiming none of this is personal, but that would be a fallacy. Once you have gotten myself as the player to care about something, it's no longer the impersonal mask of persona or roleplayed character. So, yes, this is personal.

Ardchoille, I apologize for continuing along with the conflict despite your efforts to put an end to it. I am going to try to divorce myself from this thread for a few hours now, since it is impossible for any comments made ICly on the subject to be honestly said to be based only on IC opinion at this point. Maybe in a few hours, the prroblem itself can be rectified in a way that separates my OOC opposition to both the topic and the player from any IC opinion Velnayanis takes. I do not hold hope for such a thing, but might as well try. There is no IC reason as to why Velnayanis would not comment on future drafts of this; all of the problems, after all, exist on the player side for this issue, when normally they should not involve the player at all.

User avatar
Killerustan
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 145
Founded: Oct 31, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Killerustan » Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:26 pm

I read some of that rambling diatribe but after a while I just got the feeling you should send that mess to Ann Landers. Its my proposal and I will certainly re-write it. I will also get it passed. You people have sat in this WA for years? And over years the only legislation that I can see you have bothered with are lets condemn this region, lets commend so and so, lets make everyone grow trees type of preposterous non-sense. You have done nothing because you don't have any passion.

Let me tell you something genocide disgust me. I don't care if you are doing it to blacks, whites, jews or whoever it is a disgusting practice that demands good people resist it. There are people running around in modern times with slaves, people pretending to be Vlad the Impaler, these countries are just not viable and sorry but I like rp to have some facts to it.

Countries that behave in this fashion would have sanctions put on them so quick it would make their heads spin. Such nations would have their trade routes cut off and they would eventually be overthrown and their governing thugs would be killed by massive coalitions of equally disgusted countries. And you want to tell me I can't pass a trade sanction.

Your argument was fallacious all the way around. Too bad if you don't like that. As you may have noticed I don't give in to non-sense to easily. The mods argument is completely different from yours. For whereas you claimed It can't be done. The mod basically agreed with my reading of the rules and said it can be done but you have to word it a little differently.

That is a world different from your argument. When without a rebuttal to resolution 23 you went so far as to falsely claim those sanctions can't be done any longer. You can't tell me when I am looking at something and clearly see it to be black that its actually white. Get the hell outta here. I have a very commanding grasp of the English language. It is so good that I was sent to college in the 4th grade for my grasp of English and mathematics.

Lastly, I didn't just get on the board and start posting. I consulted with more experienced players and read the rules over several times. Only then did I post a draft so other experienced players could give me the benefit of their knowledge and wisdom. But I did not get knowledge and wisdom I got a bunch of BS, unimaginative slurs of the English language and static. Your OOC comments weren't returned until the point where you and Grays Harbor stepped into disrespect with your comments.

Look at your arguments that trade sanctions imposed by WA members at the order of the GA amount to affecting non-wa countries. The mod said that isn't true and I suppose that's a fallacious argument then, isn't it? The gist of your argument was that putting sanctions on Adolf Hitler is not only illegal but its something you just wouldn't support even if it was legal. You know what is funny I accepted from the start that the wording could be off but I knew the concept was feasible and well within the rules of the game.
Last edited by Killerustan on Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Join the Islamic Caliphate Islamic Caliphate Armed Forces : 97,880,000 +

User avatar
The Regency of Stars
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 489
Founded: Sep 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Regency of Stars » Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:53 pm

ooc: I personally don't believe there is anything wrong with the spirit of this.
We Roleplay the WA being in the game. The security council is part of the WA last time I checked(at least, I had to be a member to vote in it).

This does not force any action upon Non-WA members other then specific ones need to find some trade partners outside of the WA. Like they had to do if they were buying biological weapons from one until recently. Should we retroactively remove it for that?

The only thing that is unclear is what happens if a condemned nation is in the WA? what action do they take?

I like it. It seems like something a certain real life international organization would do.

I'm fairly big on saying what I mean hence the short post and to the person two pages above me, TL;DR(especially on the laptop).

I'm new to the WA process, but it doesn't seem any different then any other person's other then that it gives the SC more powah. So that when they give you the little paper to your leader that says 'Stop or else' they really consider that maybe they should Stop.
Last edited by The Regency of Stars on Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Factbook
Fartsniffage wrote:
Ifreann wrote:If whales had laser eyes the Japanese would stop hunting them in short order.


No they wouldn't.

They would use the eyes in their giant robots.

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18566
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Grays Harbor » Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:54 pm

Commendations and Condemnations are new, and from the SC not the GA.

We are glad you have confidence, however, there are many here who will oppose any one-size-fits-all sanctions proposal.

(and to respond, there was no "disrespect" on my part, it was a response to your postings.)
Last edited by Grays Harbor on Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Not Ta'veren

User avatar
Killerustan
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 145
Founded: Oct 31, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Killerustan » Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:09 pm

Grays Harbor wrote:Commendations and Condemnations are new, and from the SC not the GA.

We are glad you have confidence, however, there are many here who will oppose any one-size-fits-all sanctions proposal.

(and to respond, there was no "disrespect" on my part, it was a response to your postings.)

Everyone has a view point. As for people opposing it there are several thousand votes to be given on any proposal so I suppose that is where debate and politicking comes into play. That is fine. What I spoke against above is the spurious argument that such a resolution can't be done. It can and it will be.
Last edited by Killerustan on Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Join the Islamic Caliphate Islamic Caliphate Armed Forces : 97,880,000 +

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18566
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Grays Harbor » Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:15 pm

Killerustan wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:Commendations and Condemnations are new, and from the SC not the GA.

We are glad you have confidence, however, there are many here who will oppose any one-size-fits-all sanctions proposal.

(and to respond, there was no "disrespect" on my part, it was a response to your postings.)

Everyone has a view point. As for people opposing it there are several thousand votes to be given on any proposal so I suppose that is where debate and politicking comes into play. That is fine. What I spoke against above is the spurious argument that such a resolution can't be done. It can and it will be.


It also needs to be endorsed by 56 (give or take) delegates prior to it coming to a vote. And I know of several delegates who will not approve it unless there are drastic changes and it is not some "sanctions blanket".

You will also need many other changes as well, considering it has already been declared "illegal" by two mods.
Last edited by Grays Harbor on Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Not Ta'veren

User avatar
Ilharessa
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 155
Founded: Nov 16, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Ilharessa » Wed Dec 02, 2009 5:03 pm

Killerustan wrote:I read some of that rambling diatribe but after a while I just got the feeling you should send that mess to Ann Landers. Its my proposal and I will certainly re-write it. I will also get it passed. You people have sat in this WA for years? And over years the only legislation that I can see you have bothered with are lets condemn this region, lets commend so and so, lets make everyone grow trees type of preposterous non-sense. You have done nothing because you don't have any passion.


Well, I believe it's time to stop being civil, then.

For one thing, the Security Council is new. For another thing, compliance with World Assembly resolutions is mandatory. In fact, I recently was in another argument over that issue, though that was done entirely ICly. There has been no need for sanctions upon nations in violation for the most part because those resolutions were usually aimed entirely at member nations.

And, really, insulting the General Assembly forum and anyone who reads this is not the way to go about getting support. Instead, it shows that you cannot take the criticism while your own words show why it is you should have read entirely to the end of what I said.

Let me tell you something genocide disgust me. I don't care if you are doing it to blacks, whites, jews or whoever it is a disgusting practice that demands good people resist it. There are people running around in modern times with slaves, people pretending to be Vlad the Impaler, these countries are just not viable and sorry but I like rp to have some facts to it.


Genocide itself was a successfully-employed military tactic that served the world quite well for millennia before World War 2 happened. World War 2 is merely what finally drove the point home to humanity on the action.

And, really, you're telling me that slavery systems are not viable... So the Roman Empire, the Egyptian Empire, the British Empire, the United States of America in the years before the Civil War, and thousands of nations throughout history were not viable as nations. History does not seem to agree with you on the viability of slave nations.

And as for Vlad the Impaler-style leaders: They still exist in the modern world today. In fact, one of the more successful ones was the leader of the Soviet Union during the height of its strength and is one of the major powers responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany. Note that Stalin was long dead by the time the Soviet Union fell. It seems history also disagrees with you on the viability of those.

And, you know what? Sometimes, we play a nation that isn't long-term viable on purpose. Not all of the real world nations are long term viable. Why should our nations in NS be any different?

Countries that behave in this fashion would have sanctions put on them so quick it would make their heads spin. Such nations would have their trade routes cut off and they would eventually be overthrown and their governing thugs would be killed by massive coalitions of equally disgusted countries. And you want to tell me I can't pass a trade sanction.


They put sanctions galore on Iraq in real life. Those sanctions did not stop the nation from remaining stable for years later. By all signs, it was likely Hussein would have died in office instead of being overthrown. All those trade sanctions did was make it harder for the people to get what they need and make it even harder for the people to have the resources they need to fight back against the government. In the end, all they did was make the government of Iraq even more powerful.

And, guess what? That's the realworld effect of trade sanctions. I've yet to see an example of them actually have the effect it should. And, within Nationstates, trade sanctions like that are laughable. How many RPing nations are actually part of the WA, anyway?

Your argument was fallacious all the way around. Too bad if you don't like that. As you may have noticed I don't give in to non-sense to easily. The mods argument is completely different from yours. For whereas you claimed It can't be done. The mod basically agreed with my reading of the rules and said it can be done but you have to word it a little differently.


Completely fallacious all the way around? Well, let's check that!

Ilharessa wrote:Neither of those actually decrease defensive budgets of the nations affected. What they do is affect where those items are being sent. As such, nothing actually presented within the proposal itself fits the category chosen.


Ardchoille wrote:[Category violation: The category "global disarmament" is for "a resolution to slash worldwide military spending". The discussion makes clear that it refers to lowering nations' actual spending on purchasing arms. Seems to me you've handwaved this away.


Ilharessa wrote:You've already highlighted one problem there: This can affect nations outside of the World Assembly. Like it or not, the General Assembly may not pass laws that affect nonmembers of the World Assembly regardless of what the Security Council does. The two different organizations use independent rulesets and are effectively separate from each other in every single way except that the proposals each generates may be voted on by frequenters of either. As such, this is automatically illegal as a game mechanics violation just from your own argument.


Ilharessa wrote:There are plenty of reasons. For one thing, the C&C resolutions are a product of the Security Council, which itself operates under an entirely different ruleset than the General Assembly and is currently mainly an OOC institution. Since the General Assembly is an IC institution, the two are currently mostly incompatible for interacting. Look at how many C&C resolutions have been passed for OOC reasons.


Ilharessa wrote:I am not Kenny, but I can answer this: The SC is primarily OOC, along with pretty much all of the resolutions it produces, while the GA is IC. From a roleplay standpoint, maybe one or two SC-produced resolutions actually exist. Quite possibly, none of them do. That is why it is that the GA realistically cannot legislate based on the actions of the SC and vice-versa.


Ilharessa wrote:Secondly, your proposal presents a problem in that it affects any nation which is condemned by the WASC. Since the WASC can condemn nonmember nations, this creates the problem that your resolution then becomes one which specifically targets nonmember nations. That is explicitely illegal, no matter the legality of #23, as well as the fact that your's targets specific nations (which is also a Game Mechanics violation).


Ilharessa wrote:In this, we have to disagree. The SC is not an IC body, while the GA is. The different may be minute to you, but by the rules, it's a massive difference. Your proposal supporting anything the SC does is an automatic game mechanics violation simply because it, as is noted in the metagaming section of the rules that I quoted, "breaks the fourth wall." In addition, it's already been ruled a metagaming violation because it seeks to affect only specific people. I am arguing it is a further metagaming violation on top of that because it targets a specific class of nation in its entirety; one which, realistically, no resolution, including the one banning slavery, has actually done.


Flibbeites wrote:OK, you're trying to target specific nations, that is illegal. Proposals must affect all WA member nations equally, this proposal does not do that (ignoring the fact that currently there aren't any condemned nations).


Ardchoille wrote:Legality of sanctions, specifically, in #23. It is/was within the GA's (NSUN's, WA's) remit to tell WA nations what to do; in this case, impose sanctions. It is not in the WA's remit to do it itself; that is, the WA doesn't impose the sanctions, the nations do, because the WA resolution has told them to. WA resolutions order, WA nations act. All #23 does is order WA nations to impose sanctions. The sanctions themselves may affect non-WA nations, but the resolution affects only the WA nations. So #23 is still legal.

On that basis, provided your wording confines your proposal's area of effect to WA nations, telling WA nations to impose sanctions is legal. The resolution applies only to WA nations; the sanctions apply to whatever group is named, which can include non-WA nations, or rabbits, or blue velvet chairs, or ... nations condemned by the SC? No.

Because no actual nations have been condemned yet? No; eventually individual nations will be, and it is legal for WA resolutions to be written so that they will apply to future situations.

It's because GA proposals can affect SC proposals, but SC proposals can't affect GA proposals.

GA proposals have to be written to apply to all WA nations. The GA cannot make resolutions that apply only to a specific nation. So the GA can't respond to an SC resolution (unless a general application can be deduced and a new proposal written).


Oh, and for telling you that your proposal is not possible. It's not just us. A mod also did it. Here, let me quote you the exact wording.

Ardchoille wrote:What this means for your proposal is: one illegality can be fixed, one aspect isn't illegal, but the basic concept isn't achievable.


Note the part I bolded. A mod has now told you it cannot be done.

So, is my argument fallacious? I asked you to prove it is. You have repeatedly refused to provide proof. I have provided proof it is not, as you claim, "fallacious all the way around." In fact, I have outright proven that claim to be a lie. If you want the proof, scroll up and read the quotes for yourself.

That is a world different from your argument. When without a rebuttal to resolution 23 you went so far as to falsely claim those sanctions can't be done any longer. You can't tell me when I am looking at something and clearly see it to be black that its actually white. Get the hell outta here. I have a very commanding grasp of the English language. It is so good that I was sent to college in the 4th grade for my grasp of English and mathematics.


Mmm... No. I've already shown that it was not entirely different. Different in wording, but the basic message was the same. In fact, let's look at what I actually said on the trade sanctions:

Allemande wrote:[*]"All WA member states shall immediately cease all businesses, individuals and government entities from conducting any form of trade, economic aid or economic assistance with all condemned nations."
- That's a trade sanction, but there's no category for trade sanctions, which makes it a "ham sandwich" (more on that below).[/list]


Ilharessa wrote:That is probably Social Justice item, not a "ham sandwich" item. In this particular case, you are restricting the ability of business to interact with a nation because of items it has taken that annoyed the Security Council. As such, you are forcing businesses not to do something in order to deal with what could be argued as increasing the basic welfare of an entire nation. It probably doesn't fit there either, which leaves the very real possibility that this entire proposal has no category into which it actually fits.


Ilharessa wrote:Whether or not #23 was legal back then does not change whether or not your proposal is illegal now. In fact, your proposal has even been ruled illegal by a mod on this very thread. Look for the name in red text. Also, note that all you have done is provide an argument for why #23 should be repealed, though it is a weak one, and not for why your own should be legal.

Secondly, your proposal presents a problem in that it affects any nation which is condemned by the WASC. Since the WASC can condemn nonmember nations, this creates the problem that your resolution then becomes one which specifically targets nonmember nations. That is explicitely illegal, no matter the legality of #23, as well as the fact that your's targets specific nations (which is also a Game Mechanics violation).


Ilharessa wrote:Secondly, your proposal does target specific nations. It targets any nation the SC condemns. As such, it will mostly be on an individual basis. This could mean your proposal only ever affects one nation. By WA rules, that is illegal (look above at the Metagaming aspect I have quoted). In addition, you are not proving the legality of your own proposal, but potentially showing that another needs to be repealed due to a slightly illegal section. Whether or not that proposal is illegal does not change whether or not your's is. Finally, that proposal was written specifically to target only an issue of exploitation; your's is written, despite your attempts to claim otherwise, simply to punish nations that are condemned by the SC. The SC which is OOC and, thus, a metagaming violation to even try to pass resolutions in relation to within the General Assembly.


Ilharessa wrote:And, finally, note what I have said repeatedly: Whether or not #23 is legal or not has no effect upon whether or not your's is legal. Different circumstances, different era, different considerations. The thought I am trying to argue against that being a trade sanction in a previous resolution is not a fallacy on my end, and I ask you just this once to not sit there and lie through your teeth about what I am actually saying, especially when you try to make it sound like I am challenging the legality of a past resolution when everything I have said is based upon the current one. I try to be nice, but my patience with those who prefer to alter what I have said to become something it is not and never has been tends to run dry very quickly.


Did I, ever, say the trade sanctions are illegal? Nope. In fact, I only ever stated the possibility that the resolution you were quoting might be illegal while specifically avoiding addressing if it is or not. So, my claiming that those sanctions is illegal is another lie on your end, as I have shown.

And as for the college item: Prove it. You will have to excuse me, but that comes across as a lie no matter if it's true or not.

Lastly, I didn't just get on the board and start posting. I consulted with more experienced players and read the rules over several times. Only then did I post a draft so other experienced players could give me the benefit of their knowledge and wisdom. But I did not get knowledge and wisdom I got a bunch of BS, unimaginative slurs of the English language and static. Your OOC comments weren't returned until the point where you and Grays Harbor stepped into disrespect with your comments.


As I have stated before, Velnayanis is not me. Yes, she is disrespectful. She's disrespectful of everyone. I, however, made efforts to remain respectful of you in how I treated you until you started lying. And before you say you haven't been lying, I've already proven you lied. Your attempts to deflect the focus away from yourself will not work.

Look at your arguments that trade sanctions imposed by WA members at the order of the GA amount to affecting non-wa countries. The mod said that isn't true and I suppose that's a fallacious argument then, isn't it? The gist of your argument was that putting sanctions on Adolf Hitler is not only illegal but its something you just wouldn't support even if it was legal. You know what is funny I accepted from the start that the wording could be off but I knew the concept was feasible and well within the rules of the game.


Oh, joy. More lies.

1. Already proven I never called trade sanctions illegal.
2. Already proven the mod agreed with me on what aspect of it affecting other nations I did call illegal.
3. The gist of my argument is that it is illegal for multiple violations of game rules. Note that Ardchoille posted multiple ways in which this is illegal. Now, let me show you a quote where I summarized the gist of my argument

Ilharessa wrote:So that proves that my saying your proposal is illegal due to multiple game mechanics violations (with you only disputing one of them), being the wrong category, being the wrong strength, and for being bloody stupid all incorrect? I must say I honestly doubt that you have proven that.


4. I never said I wouldn't support this if it was legal. In fact, here's what I said on that:

Ilharessa wrote:When someone like me asks for proof, they want actual evidence. It's always better to provide it even if they don't want it and are just calling your bluff; that way, you have the ability to say that you did, indeed, prove it. The problem here is that evidence is a lot more than just a simple reposting of a bit of a resolution, especially when most of the charges you made had nothing to do with the resolution itself. That brings up a particular problem: As far as I can tell, of the four things I asked you to prove, you only appear to have addressed one and did not even provide any actual evidence to back your claim that you had proved it. You have not, as was specifically made clear by posts that followed. Just because I do not speak that plainly or use less complex thought, to the point that even I have to admit I have to cut it short and simplify it for the needs of basic communication, does not mean I was at any time attempting to twist words. Nor is it an indication of fallaciousness within an argument, an ulterior motive, or my opposition to it going beyond the rules. As Ardchoille rightly pointed out, I would not have argued this long on something I actually opposed extremely; I would have simply told you it's illegal, listed categories, and left the topic to decay naturally. I do think you have the basis of a good idea, but that your idea needs work... and, first, it was getting you to recognize the illegalities within the proposal.


Ilharessa wrote:I am left within a difficult position. I do not oppose this being rewritten to be within the rules and legal. I do, however, oppose you doing the writing. Since at this point it is me the player taking an opinion and not my character, as usual, I find that this also ultimately presents a problem wherein the normal barriers of RP, which serve to keep my own person separate from the issues and actions of the character, have been broken down and left in a state where I am unsure if I can make a post in relation to this topic any further in an IC aspect without that IC aspect being colored by OOC opinion. Since the World Assembly is, to myself as the player, normally nothing more than something I can attach to for RP purposes and which serves no purpose I should OOCly care about, this presents a serious problem in that I do, as the player, actually have a stance on an issue within it for once. And, as you have seen, I usually can be quite intractable when I actually take a stance. I have been told I am as slow to move as a mountain; and just as difficult to get out of the way once I have moved.


Note the parts I bolded. I did, at one point, accuse it of being unworthy of WA consideration. And, at current, the way it is written is unworthy of WA consideration due to it being illegal for other rules violations.

Now, we are done. I've done enough on this thread and I am certain you will not listen to the mods, given your own words that you plan to go on ahead with it anyway and only thought one part of it illegal when the entire concept is, and I know this will only go far worse.

User avatar
The Altani Federation
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 194
Founded: Mar 24, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Altani Federation » Wed Dec 02, 2009 5:07 pm

Ignoring the illegality of this for the moment (which is, ironically, the same thing the author is doing despite repeated modly assertions of said illegality), I am curious: why can't individual nations, alliances, regions, etc. just levy sanctions of their own? Why does this merit WA involvement?

If individual nations, or groups of nations, want to sanction a fellow state, they can and should do so. But blanket sanctions, forced by the WA, even if a state does not wish to levy them, is not a reasonable request. We always favor international legislation when we judge that it does not trample too much on national sovereignty. This draft, however, takes foreign relations and diplomacy out of the hands of individual states, and that is unacceptable to us. The Altani Federation can decide well enough when to sanction someone. We don't need or want the WA to tell us to do so.

-Nikolai Nagashybyuly, Ambassador
Last edited by The Altani Federation on Wed Dec 02, 2009 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Associated Sovereign Nations of the Altani Federation
Many lands, many peoples, one Federation.

User avatar
Yekrut
Envoy
 
Posts: 321
Founded: Mar 01, 2005
Ex-Nation

Re: Draft: Sanctions on Condemned Nations

Postby Yekrut » Wed Dec 02, 2009 5:56 pm

Nudging this debate back towards IC, this is actually close to Yekrut’s position in the original thread where the issue of sanctions came up. I should add that Yekrut is not a member of the WA and simply offered its opinion on the matter as is, without further argument.

Again, this in no way touches on the question of whether the concept of sanctions for non-economic reasons (Trade Protectionism or Social Justice) is something that can be handled under the rules for GA resolutions. Rather, Yekrut’s opinion is simply that mechanical problems with getting a Condemnation passed and then repealed when no longer needed in a timely way make the situation worse than it has to be; in the case of Ishema, the threat of a Condemnation helped change that country's position and force them to negotiate when they otherwise would not have done so; in the subtle "carrot-and-stick" give and take of those negotiations, things would have been harder to achieve without a fair degree of operational flexibility.

On the other hand, before completely departing the subject and allowing this thread to die - which it should, pending a rewrite of Killerustan’s proposal - I will step slightly out of IC and note that we have now seen a second RP-based Condemnation proposal. From an RP perspective, I find this an interesting and game-invigorating development (IC, Yekrut has absolutely no opinion on Kahanistan’s proposed condemnation of the Parthians, as having such an opinion could be fatal); at the same time, I recognise that some people will vehemently oppose it for various reasons (mostly "fourth wall" or "metagaming" concerns). Without RP-based C&Cs, however, I feel that the SC will become nothing less than a damnable annoyance, if it isn't one already.

With RP-based C&Cs, however, a whole world of world of possibilities arises; the question to ask, then is - if we do indeed go this way (which will be the next big debate) - what role should GA-enacted sanctions play in this world?

User avatar
Killerustan
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 145
Founded: Oct 31, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Killerustan » Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:17 pm

Oh its illegal oh its so bad.

Ilharessa wrote:Snip


You really should also direct your non-sense towards others before it does get really uncivil. Have a good day.
Last edited by Killerustan on Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Join the Islamic Caliphate Islamic Caliphate Armed Forces : 97,880,000 +

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ardchoille » Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:06 pm

Killerustan wrote:Oh its illegal oh its so bad.

Ilharessa wrote:Snip


You really should also direct your non-sense towards others before it does get really uncivil. Have a good day.


Killerustan, cut it out. You're OOC: that means your remarks will be a direct flame, with attendant penalties.
Ilharessa, cut it out. You're (currently) OOC: that means your remarks will be a direct flame, with attendant penalties.

Guys, the GA has been around in some form for quite a while, and its players have worked out ways to handle the hostility that builds up when someone just won't see the light, despite your argument being obviously right and their argument being based on lies, deception and deliberate provocation (etc, etc).

One is to go IC. It helps dispel some of the anger if you can throw a shoe, or chuck a glass of water over the offending Ambassador. It also makes life more entertaining for the rest of us.

Another is to put each other on Ignore if you find someone who rubs you up the wrong way even when they're just breathing.

A third is to rely on the mods to keep you off each other's throats. This is not a good method. It will lead to frequent and increasingly long absences from the Assembly, culminating in DEAT. It is also regarded as rather childish.

This is a forum for arguments. Arguments get heated. It is expected that players will deal with that (relatively) courteously. WA players have managed to do that without this forum becoming a complete ban-fest, unlike (fill in blank). Step back from the computer when you get heated, read over what you've typed before you press Submit and DON'T GET PERSONAL.

Carve this into your desk-tops: attack the argument, not the player.
Last edited by Ardchoille on Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18566
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Grays Harbor » Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:12 pm

Killerustan wrote:Oh its illegal oh its so bad.



"Sir, your cavalier attitude towards illegality of proposals, and the insistance that you shall pursue an illegal proposal has just cemented the firm opposition of the Kingdom to this endeavor. It is rarely a good idea to alienate the delegates whose approval of any proposal is required prior to it being able to go forward for a vote."
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Not Ta'veren

User avatar
Flibbleites
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6569
Founded: Jan 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Flibbleites » Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:18 pm

Grays Harbor wrote:
Killerustan wrote:Oh its illegal oh its so bad.



"Sir, your cavalier attitude towards illegality of proposals, and the insistance that you shall pursue an illegal proposal has just cemented the firm opposition of the Kingdom to this endeavor. It is rarely a good idea to alienate the delegates whose approval of any proposal is required prior to it being able to go forward for a vote."

Persistence in pursuing an illegal proposal also tends to be detrimental towards one's long term membership in this organization as well.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

User avatar
Killerustan
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 145
Founded: Oct 31, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Killerustan » Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:35 pm

Well lets be real clear that a mod, Ardchoille put forth very detailed reasons why my proposal can be done. If you guys don't like I don't know what to tell you. But I am not listening to it. I told him I would rewrite it so it fits his understanding of the "rules" and resubmit. There is nothing illegal in that at all. In fact his response was thank you.

Now, I do not have to listen to silly whining by persons because they can't stand it is possible to do it. Unless you are saying Bob Flibble
WA Representative that Ardchoille is lying to me his response to my GTH sounded good. I will file another GTH because I think your threat that I am pursuing an illegal proposal is a bit outrageous and out of line.

Archoille set down specific conditions for me to propose a legal motion to place sanctions and I intend to do it. BTW if your WA doesn't do anything but pass fluff and dumb legislation regarding trees and other superficial subjects don't worry about Killerustan being there for long.
Join the Islamic Caliphate Islamic Caliphate Armed Forces : 97,880,000 +

User avatar
Philimbesi
Minister
 
Posts: 2374
Founded: Jun 07, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Philimbesi » Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:54 pm

BTW if your WA doesn't do anything but pass fluff and dumb legislation regarding trees and other superficial subjects don't worry about Killerustan being there for long.


Dibs on his office space!
The Unified States Of Philimbesi
The Honorable Josiah Bartlett - President

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ardchoille » Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:26 pm

Killerustan wrote:Now, I do not have to listen to silly whining by persons because they can't stand it is possible to do it. Unless you are saying Bob Flibble
WA Representative that Ardchoille is lying to me his response to my GTH sounded good. I will file another GTH because I think your threat that I am pursuing an illegal proposal is a bit outrageous and out of line.


And I think your response to a mod who was advising you, for your own good, to back off, is a bit outrageous and out of line. Your attitude throughout the thread has been belligerent and insulting to players who disagreed with you. *** Warned for flaming. ***

When a mod tells you something, you do not dismiss it as silly whining. You are pursuing an illegal proposal. Flibbleites (who is a mod, who has been in the WA since antiquity and who knows the rules backwards, sideways and upside down) told you that your proposal was illegal. It was. It is. It needs a complete rewrite. Yet, instead of doing that, you are still sitting around crowing, "Nerny-ner, I was right!"

You were wrong on the points I discussed. You were wrong on the point Flibbleites told you about. Telling you so is not a threat, it is a statement based on his wide experience. He is doing his job, yet you abuse him.

Note that I did not respond to your GHR; whatever mod was on duty did. My response was to your posted proposal in this thread. Whatever reply you got to your GHR probably sounded "good" because mods are generally polite. We expect the same from players.

I am locking this thread. Start a new one when you have calmed down and read the rules.
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bhang Bhang Duc

Advertisement

Remove ads