DRAFT: Condemn the Security Council

[A Rightist Puppet]

Courtesy of Jeruesalem.

A resolution to express shock or dismay at a nation or region.

PRAISING the Security Council for its many resolutions.

OBSERVING the importance of the Security Council to the WA.

APPRECIATES the hard work WA members have put into Security Council resolutions.

RECOGNIZING the bickering between regions which goes on using the Security Council “Commend and Condemn” functions at the expense of more important issues.

ASSERTING that the Security Council Commend and Condemn has resulted in some arrogant nations and regions seeking Commends and Condemns for the sake of bragging rights.

SHOCKED that this loud minority of nations, defenders and raiders alike, in the Security Council are abusing it for the sake of personal grudges and vendettas against other nations and regions, taking away from the true purpose of the Security Council.

NOTING the amount of bickering which these resolutions have caused, both before and after being brought up to vote.

WONDERING how the Security Council has allowed itself to use up nearly one-third of the WA’s time for this bickering.

FEARING that all of this bickering is causing emotional stress, anxiety, and trauma amongst members of the WA which may not be curable.

DISMAYED the Security Council has been used for selfish gain by these certain nations and regions when it could be passing more important resolutions.

HEREBY CONDEMNS the Security Council until reformed.





Hereby concludes the need for the following:

1) PROVIDING a “grace period” for Commend and Condemn resolutions lasting for two months, so nations do not repeatedly spam the “Proposals” section of the Security Council with attempts to repeal them immediately after passage;

2) PROHIBITING nations and regions from being both commended and condemned at the same time;

3) FORBIDDING a nation from commending or condemning itself.


[Ambitious, eh?]

[Hirota]

Wrong forum buddy :/

[Flibbleites]

Thread towed.

[The Halseyist Faction]

RECOGNIZING the bickering between regions which goes on using the Security Council “Commend and Condemn” functions at the expense of more important issues.

...

Isn't this known as 'Shooting yourself in the foot?'

Further, do we really need more ooc resoultions? Having them at all seems quite ridicious, but this is just pushing what little tolerence I had already for the Security Council.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

Dear Mr. Hypocrite Proposer,

Explain to me how you plan to do all of this by getting another controversial condemnation up-to-vote, and a region innocently condemned?

EDITED: To be 'called for' ?

[Ardchoille]

Not only ambitious, but, as it stands, illegal.

You can condemn regions or nations. There is a region called The Security Council. But the wording of your Condemnation makes it clear you are condemning the actual body, the SC, not the region so named.

Your first three pars are ambivalent enough to refer to the region (though I'm not sure how you would justify the phrase "its many resolutions"; I don't think its members have authored all that many).

But, from "RECOGNIZING" on, the proposal is out of order.

The final par would sink it even if the rest of it was okay: you can't "Commend" or "Condemn" conditionally -- "until they change their minds" or "until they learn their lesson" -- or "until reformed".

That line also implicitly asks the SC to do something it can't do: reform itself. Neither the SC nor the GA can change the coding of the game.

Consider the slippery nature of the word "reform". Perhaps you just mean "improve its manners -- stop bickering". That sort of reform is achievable, but has to come from within, through the actions of its members, not by fiat in a resolution.

But if you want it "re-formed" -- shaped in a new way, or, say, modded so heavily that every mention of the words "raider" or "defender", or every slighting remark about the SC itself, is treated as trolling -- the SC can't bring that about.

EDIT: On the third of your proposed reforms -- forbidding a nation or region from C&Cing itself -- I've kicked a couple of proposals on that basis. Most players aren't blatant enough to try it. If they can persuade another nation to do it, that's the other one's lookout; and if it's done with a puppet, then it's the job of the SC membership to expose the fraud and post a GHR so that mods can check.

EDIT 2: I'd ask nations commenting to do so politely. "Hypocrite" is uncalled for; some of the suggestions in this are fair topics for debate, even if the proposal itself won't fly.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

"Hypocrite" is uncalled for;

Really?

Maybe my "emotional stress, anxiety, and trauma" is getting in the way of me seeing the 'light'.

Anyway... on the subject of the proposal's illegal operative clauses which I'll assume are legal for some hypothetical fun,

1) PROVIDING a “grace period” for Commend and Condemn resolutions lasting for two months, so nations do not repeatedly spam the “Proposals” section of the Security Council with attempts to repeal them immediately after passage;

So if someone condemns or commends a region or nation unfairly they should have to live with it for atleast two months because ..

A) The WA is full of lemmings.
B) Repeals are a supposed "waste of time"

People keep talking about "wasted time", goddammit, slow down people, sure in some instances liberation attempts are time sensitive, but the queue will still be here in a week.

I think if someone can get another "Repeal "Condemn NAZI EUROPE"" up-to-vote, that it deserves to be up-to-vote, you have to respect the system.

2) PROHIBITING nations and regions from being both commended and condemned at the same time;

Why?

3) FORBIDDING a nation from commending or condemning itself.

"Condemn Aegera" just proved that the SC can enforce this standard by itself.

[Ardchoille]

"Hypocrite" is uncalled for;

Really?

Maybe my "emotional stress, anxiety, and trauma" is getting in the way of me seeing the 'light'.

Aww, Uni -- maybe you need a nice, relaxing holiday away from all that nasty NS, hmmmm? *click* (It's orright, relax, j/k, Artichokeville is not in control this arvo).

Anyway... on the subject of the proposal's illegal operative clauses which I'll assume are legal for some hypothetical fun, <snip bits I agree with>

2) PROHIBITING nations and regions from being both commended and condemned at the same time;

Why?

Exactly. There's no reason why one nation shouldn't see an action as worthy of commendation, while another sees the same action as worthy of condemnation.

One quibble: Suppose a "Condemn Artichokeville for making faces at Unibot" and "Commend Artichokeville for making faces at Unibot" both make quorum and "Condemn" comes to vote first. If it passes, I'd then expect that the "Commend" proposal would be removed by mods before it came to vote, as the majority of the SC would have decided that the action was not commendable and wouldn't want to, er, waste time by voting on the same topic immediately.

So, if a Commend and a Condemn for the same thing are in queue together, the one that comes to vote first is a de facto vote on the other. If it passes, the other must be assumed to have failed. But if it fails, the other must be given the opportunity to pass.

EDIT: This would need split-second timing by the mods, though, to kill the second proposal the minute the first passed; otherwise, if the split-the-queues readjustment had gone through by then, then the second one would come up for vote automatically. Dammit, now I've got a hypothetical worry about a hypothetical situation.

[Nordicus]

FEARING that all of this bickering is causing emotional stress, anxiety, and trauma amongst members of the WA which may not be curable.

Lolwut?

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

One quibble: Suppose a "Condemn Artichokeville for making faces at Unibot" and "Commend Artichokeville for making faces at Unibot" both make quorum and "Condemn" comes to vote first. If it passes, I'd then expect that the "Commend" proposal would be removed by mods before it came to vote, as the majority of the SC would have decided that the action was not commendable and wouldn't want to, er, waste time by voting on the same topic immediately.

So, if a Commend and a Condemn for the same thing are in queue together, the one that comes to vote first is a de facto vote on the other.

This is under the trail of thought that condemning a nation is the direct opposite of commending a nation, which though it is, in all human logicalness, however the two are not two direct ends on a battery of objectiveness, all Security Council resolutions are by some way subjective, commending a nation for one act and condemning them for the same act does not neutralize the act or rip a hole in the time space continuum, it just gives the nominee two shiny badges with conflicting images. The only possibility I see of this even happening is if the issue is so controversial that it divides the WA literally in half and both the commendation and condemnation pass with slim margins (with some light vote stacking on one of the resolutions). If this happens I don't see how it is a "waste of time" (as these are the opinions of a democratic body), nor do I think this is something the admins should fix, as it does not cause any technical problems (we're not "repealing a repeal", or "repealing WA#1"), the problems are entirely subjective and something we would only perceive as a problem when the opposing crowd also gets their opinion enacted too (the celebration for the condemnation of @@REGION@@ would dwindle with news of their commendation).

Suppose I needed to repeal "Condemn ______" first to commend them for the same action later, as it would be hard to define what I'd had to repeal for, and what I don't have to repeal for, everytime I make a preambulatory statement in a SC proposal I would have to check to see if it doesn't conflict with past resolutions. So, are preambulatory clauses, rhetoric or operative now?

"Oh, apparently I can't commend Macedon for having a nice blue and orange WFE -- SC#1 says so!"

If SC ambassadors want to avoid time wasting, that would be where I would start -- unnecessary repeals.