PASSED: Repeal "Liberate The Security Council"

[A mean old man]

Repeal "Liberate The Security Council"

I apparently accidentally copied the title and name I had typed up into the final draft of the description. Oh well. It'll do.

Repeal “Liberate The Security Council”
A mean old man

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the “World Assembly Security Council” and “The Security Council” as two different bodies, one being an official division of the World Assembly, the other being a region;

APPRECIATING the symbolic value of the resolution “Liberate The Security Council,” however noting that The WA Security Council is no longer under the “fraternal shadow” of the General Assembly, and believing that it has, to the contrary, begun to take precedent over the workings of the GA;

BELIEVING that the symbolic value of this resolution, while well-meaning, is currently lost, as the Security Council has most certainly overcome the challenges of its early age (and then some);

IDENTIFYING the target of this liberation, the region, “The Security Council,” as being a region and not officially being a body of any higher authority in the WA or the world, and as being linked to the actual WA Security Council only as much as everyone else’s region,

RECOGNIZING the founder of this region, “[nation=short]SC Fanatic[/nation],” to be a puppet nation of the active nation “[nation=short]Topid[/nation],” who has said, quote, “I have the password if anyone serious ever raids the region,” and “I founded The Security Council,” and therefore recognizing that there is, in fact, no threat of raider occupation of this region and the appearance of the lack of a founder, if the region should appear this way, is not a real threat to the security of the region;

UNDERSTANDING the World Assembly Security Council to be an organization that is run by all of the World Assembly members as a whole, and not by a small group of individuals with the same general ideology;

OBSERVING the completely useless nature of this particular liberation, and, while accepting that numerous liberations have succeeded in repairing damaged communities and freeing would-be trophy regions, noting that this liberation is of a region with an active founder (or, at least, an active player behind the founding nation who has the ability to re-found it at any time), and does nothing to help this region besides place a badge on its page;

NOTICING the unyielding stance of the WA activists of the region, “The Security Council,” against the condemnation of certain raiders and raider-sympathizers who simply want to be condemned to acquire a sort of “badge of honor” on their nation or region’s page, noticing the fact that these same people have no problem with liberating their own region (with a liberation that has no actual function) to acquire a badge of their own, and frowning on this display of hypocrisy;

NOTING that many of us work our fingers to the bone to build our regions into something influential in the world, and that this region, “The Security Council,” has cheated this grueling process simply with its name and its stealing of the spotlight by being liberated;

HEREBY repeals “Liberate The Security Council,” as this resolution’s symbolic meaning has died, there is no risk of the region being invaded by anyone who did not originally inhabit it, and the region itself is not, in fact, an accurate representation of the actual World Assembly Security Council as a whole.

[Unibotian WA Mission]

I wonder if we'll get a few recruits out of this.

I don't honestly see the point. But I suppose if I did, you wouldn't have felt it necessary to propose this.

[Todd McCloud]

While I agree with the split from the GA, nothing yet has been done to promote this split further. Furthermore, the SC has become very political lately, which has turned a lot of people off to the council. People in my own region are so tired of these liberations, some long-time members have vowed to vote against every liberation proposal. This, to me, begs for a change.

Will there be any changes? I don't know. It depends on if the body wants to change. I personally believe there should be a change. The shear volume of liberation proposals is disappointing, especially with the notion that they are being used quite often, especially after the recent one failed the first time, but was put onto the floor again, suggesting that a particular liberation proposal could effectively be put to the floor until folks get tired of it and pass it through. That is depressing, to say the least.

We could use more commendations. Perhaps regions in addition to nations. Something that removes the bad taste of the liberation proposal bile. And, as for the liberations in general, I plan to write an essay on my views as to what a raid is, and what makes it a legal raid versus something that could be condemnable. We'll see where that goes.

[Unibotian WA Mission]

While I agree with the split from the GA, nothing yet has been done to promote this split further. Furthermore, the SC has become very political lately, which has turned a lot of people off to the council. People in my own region are so tired of these liberations, some long-time members have vowed to vote against every liberation proposal. This, to me, begs for a change.

Will there be any changes? I don't know. It depends on if the body wants to change. I personally believe there should be a change. The shear volume of liberation proposals is disappointing, especially with the notion that they are being used quite often, especially after the recent one failed the first time, but was put onto the floor again, suggesting that a particular liberation proposal could effectively be put to the floor until folks get tired of it and pass it through. That is depressing, to say the least.

We could use more commendations. Perhaps regions in addition to nations. Something that removes the bad taste of the liberation proposal bile. And, as for the liberations in general, I plan to write an essay on my views as to what a raid is, and what makes it a legal raid versus something that could be condemnable. We'll see where that goes.

And repealing a symbolic representation of the great schism is a good way to invoke this change.. how? Particularly a repeal which doesn't address the resolution, but merely is based in the backstabbing politics and personal vendettas of AMOM.

Liberations are the only operative proposals that the SC has to offer, why wouldn't we be using them frequently? If we focus on commendations or condemnations the next thing people will do is complain about the 'bad taste of this C&C proposal bile' which they already did before the implementation of the liberation category.

The reason why Liberate Land of the Liberals failed the first time was because I campaigned against it, as the author turned out to be a raider. Its not passing now just because delegates don't want to see it again -- I mean, that hasn't worked yet for "Repeal 'Condemn NAZI EUROPE'", why would it work now?

[A mean old man]

Actually, it's got nothing to do with any "personal vendetta;" I wrote this up months ago. It was only what I've seen recently that prompted me to submit it.

[Unibot]

Actually, it's got nothing to do with any "personal vendetta;" I wrote this up months ago. It was only what I've seen recently that prompted me to submit it.

Wow man, thats um... cold, what can I say?

[A mean old man]

I prefer to use the word "practical."

[A mean old man]

Particularly a repeal which doesn't address the resolution,

Oh, and that's just flat-out wrong. If you'd take the time to read through the repeal, you'd find I refer to the symbolic nature of the original resolution many times.

[Unibot]

Particularly a repeal which doesn't address the resolution,

Oh, and that's just flat-out wrong. If you'd take the time to read through the repeal, you'd find I refer to the symbolic nature of the original resolution many times.

The resolution wasn't about the region, or its community. So maybe you need to reread the resolution you're attempting to repeal.

[Kalibarr]

Particularly a repeal which doesn't address the resolution,

Oh, and that's just flat-out wrong. If you'd take the time to read through the repeal, you'd find I refer to the symbolic nature of the original resolution many times.

The resolution wasn't about the region, or its community. So maybe you need to reread the resolution you're attempting to repeal.

No it was about making you think the region was important.

[Flibbleites]

I usually don't approve SC proposals, but for this one I'm making an exception.

I don't honestly see the point. But I suppose if I did, you wouldn't have felt it necessary to propose this.

And I never saw the point in a merely symbolic "liberation."

[Glen-Rhodes]

And I never saw the point in a merely symbolic "liberation."

I believe the point was to use the mods' own idea of consensus via resolution to show that people want the Security Council to be its own entity, ie. have its own proposal queue -- and I'd bet concurrent voting was part of the whole argument, too.

Wouldn't repealing it form the consensus that we don't want that?

[Sedgistan]

I believe the point was to use the mods' own idea of consensus via resolution to show that people want the Security Council to be its own entity, ie. have its own proposal queue -- and I'd bet concurrent voting was part of the whole argument, too.

Wouldn't repealing it form the consensus that we don't want that?

^That. The sensible time to repeal would be after the GA-SC split - you'd find more support then. Attempting to repeal now, especially with the clauses included here makes it look like its simply an attempt to 'get back' at some perceived slight from those players who are part of the region The Security Council.

[A mean old man]

Now what would give you that idea? I make it perfectly clear in the proposal what is wrong with the resolution I want to repeal, why its symbolic value, while having been appreciated, has lost its meaning, and I make it perfectly clear why I think that this region is, as it is, an inaccurate representation of what we know as The World Assembly Security Council as a whole, which is what it is made out to be in the original resolution.

What's so horribly unjust about that?

[Sedgistan]

Going through it point by point...

Repeal “Liberate The Security Council”
A mean old man

I was actually going to ask Ardchoille some time whether we could have some limited branding rules - so that you can't go and announce yourself at the start of a resolution. I understand this is unintentional, but as its best not to set a bad precedent you should get the proposal deleted and then re-submit (I'm sure you'd agree if there was a resolution starting "Sedgistan & Unibot")).

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the “World Assembly Security Council” and “The Security Council” as two different bodies, one being an official division of the World Assembly, the other being a region;

True - but the region was originally set up to symbolise the organisation.

APPRECIATING the symbolic value of the resolution “Liberate The Security Council,” however noting that The WA Security Council is no longer under the “fraternal shadow” of the General Assembly, and believing that it has, to the contrary, begun to take precedent over the workings of the GA;

BELIEVING that the symbolic value of this resolution, while well-meaning, is currently lost, as the Security Council has most certainly overcome the challenges of its early age (and then some);

I don't believe at all that the SC taken precedent over the GA, and the meaning is definitely not lost - though its amusing to hear you say that the SC has overcome the challenges of its early age (guess you won't complain about defender bias again?). Until the SC/GA split is finalised, the symbolic value of the resolution remains. Once its repealed, by all means retire it then on the basis its no longer needed to demonstrate support for the split.

IDENTIFYING the target of this liberation, the region, “The Security Council,” as being a region and not officially being a body of any higher authority in the WA or the world, and as being linked to the actual WA Security Council only as much as everyone else’s region,

As pointed out above, it was used to symbolise the body for the purpose of the resolution. Obviously its not a higher authority etc.

RECOGNIZING the founder of this region, “[nation=short]SC Fanatic[/nation],” to be a puppet nation of the active nation “[nation=short]Topid[/nation],” who has said, quote, “I have the password if anyone serious ever raids the region,” and “I founded The Security Council,” and therefore recognizing that there is, in fact, no threat of raider occupation of this region and the appearance of the lack of a founder, if the region should appear this way, is not a real threat to the security of the region;

Security was never the justification of the resolution.

UNDERSTANDING the World Assembly Security Council to be an organization that is run by all of the World Assembly members as a whole, and not by a small group of individuals with the same general ideology;

Unless you actually go and claim that the region The Security Council is running the organisation The Security Council, this clause seems irrelevant.

OBSERVING the completely useless nature of this particular liberation, and, while accepting that numerous liberations have succeeded in repairing damaged communities and freeing would-be trophy regions, noting that this liberation is of a region with an active founder (or, at least, an active player behind the founding nation who has the ability to re-found it at any time), and does nothing to help this region besides place a badge on its page;

Summarising points made before - not really needed. I've already responded to the points here (orig. resolution not justified on security, nor meant to help the region, but does have symbolic value".

NOTICING the unyielding stance of the WA activists of the region, “The Security Council,” against the condemnation of certain raiders and raider-sympathizers who simply want to be condemned to acquire a sort of “badge of honor” on their nation or region’s page, noticing the fact that these same people have no problem with liberating their own region (with a liberation that has no actual function) to acquire a badge of their own, and frowning on this display of hypocrisy;

The original resolution was not passed to acquire a badge - at the time, there were only 2 people with nations in the region (Topid & Uni). The small community appeared afterwards.

NOTING that many of us work our fingers to the bone to build our regions into something influential in the world, and that this region, “The Security Council,” has cheated this grueling process simply with its name and its stealing of the spotlight by being liberated;

The Security Council hasn't gained nations because of the resolution. It gained them because Uni & I invited people over to take part in the forums.

HEREBY repeals “Liberate The Security Council,” as this resolution’s symbolic meaning has died, there is no risk of the region being invaded by anyone who did not originally inhabit it, and the region itself is not, in fact, an accurate representation of the actual World Assembly Security Council as a whole.

I think a mod somewhere advised against including arguments in the operative clauses. I don't think its a formal rule, but there's no reason to re-iterate your arguments (some of them for the 3rd time) at the end. And if Uni & I do 'control' the Security Council, as you seem to think, then surely the region is an accurate representation of the body...

[Metania]

Is this not the sort of 'meaningless resolutions that waste time' that you yourself, AMOM, dislike?

What difference does it make whether or not this is in effect? The resolution it is repealing is pointless, but so is the resolution repealing it.

[A mean old man]

Going through it point by point...

Repeal “Liberate The Security Council”
A mean old man

I was actually going to ask Ardchoille some time whether we could have some limited branding rules - so that you can't go and announce yourself at the start of a resolution. I understand this is unintentional, but as its best not to set a bad precedent you should get the proposal deleted and then re-submit (I'm sure you'd agree if there was a resolution starting "Sedgistan & Unibot")).

Naw, I'd then remind you that it's the norm for co-authors to be announced at the end of the proposal.

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the “World Assembly Security Council” and “The Security Council” as two different bodies, one being an official division of the World Assembly, the other being a region;

True - but the region was originally set up to symbolise the organisation.

As was "shitty proposal writing" to symbolize what it was named for, but that was deemed illegal as it was purely symbolic. As far as I can tell, this resolution's no better, however it's a liberation rather than a C/C.

If this hadn't been passed already and was proposed nowadays, it would be deemed illegal by the moderators.

APPRECIATING the symbolic value of the resolution “Liberate The Security Council,” however noting that The WA Security Council is no longer under the “fraternal shadow” of the General Assembly, and believing that it has, to the contrary, begun to take precedent over the workings of the GA;

BELIEVING that the symbolic value of this resolution, while well-meaning, is currently lost, as the Security Council has most certainly overcome the challenges of its early age (and then some);

I don't believe at all that the SC taken precedent over the GA, and the meaning is definitely not lost - though its amusing to hear you say that the SC has overcome the challenges of its early age (guess you won't complain about defender bias again?). Until the SC/GA split is finalised, the symbolic value of the resolution remains. Once its repealed, by all means retire it then on the basis its no longer needed to demonstrate support for the split.

Not sure I know what you mean - of course it has overcome the challenge of not being used - in fact, I think it's becoming rather overused. I don't know what other interpretation could be made here.

IDENTIFYING the target of this liberation, the region, “The Security Council,” as being a region and not officially being a body of any higher authority in the WA or the world, and as being linked to the actual WA Security Council only as much as everyone else’s region,

As pointed out above, it was used to symbolise the body for the purpose of the resolution. Obviously its not a higher authority etc.

Of course, that's what some people may be deceived into thinking when they see a region named "The Security Council" and a WA body called "The Security Council." I'm just making it clear to them that there's a difference, and that the region isn't, technically, any more linked to the official WA than every other region there is in the world. Did you have a different opinion?

RECOGNIZING the founder of this region, “[nation=short]SC Fanatic[/nation],” to be a puppet nation of the active nation “[nation=short]Topid[/nation],” who has said, quote, “I have the password if anyone serious ever raids the region,” and “I founded The Security Council,” and therefore recognizing that there is, in fact, no threat of raider occupation of this region and the appearance of the lack of a founder, if the region should appear this way, is not a real threat to the security of the region;

Security was never the justification of the resolution.

Though all following passed liberations are made for security purposes, and the description of the liberation category itself is "A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region." There were no delegate-imposed barriers in the case of this region, and there was and is no threat to the region's security...

UNDERSTANDING the World Assembly Security Council to be an organization that is run by all of the World Assembly members as a whole, and not by a small group of individuals with the same general ideology;

Unless you actually go and claim that the region The Security Council is running the organisation The Security Council, this clause seems irrelevant.

Where does it say that? This isn't saying anything about the resolution or the region, this is just an informative statement...

OBSERVING the completely useless nature of this particular liberation, and, while accepting that numerous liberations have succeeded in repairing damaged communities and freeing would-be trophy regions, noting that this liberation is of a region with an active founder (or, at least, an active player behind the founding nation who has the ability to re-found it at any time), and does nothing to help this region besides place a badge on its page;

Summarising points made before - not really needed. I've already responded to the points here (orig. resolution not justified on security, nor meant to help the region, but does have symbolic value".

No, I actually bring up a few different points here, including the damaged communities and the badge...

NOTICING the unyielding stance of the WA activists of the region, “The Security Council,” against the condemnation of certain raiders and raider-sympathizers who simply want to be condemned to acquire a sort of “badge of honor” on their nation or region’s page, noticing the fact that these same people have no problem with liberating their own region (with a liberation that has no actual function) to acquire a badge of their own, and frowning on this display of hypocrisy;

The original resolution was not passed to acquire a badge - at the time, there were only 2 people with nations in the region (Topid & Uni). The small community appeared afterwards.

Does this clause say anything about a "community?" Do Topid and Uni not also stand against the usage of C&Cs simply for badges?

NOTING that many of us work our fingers to the bone to build our regions into something influential in the world, and that this region, “The Security Council,” has cheated this grueling process simply with its name and its stealing of the spotlight by being liberated;

The Security Council hasn't gained nations because of the resolution. It gained them because Uni & I invited people over to take part in the forums.

Don't try and tell me that its name and liberation weren't aiding factors - it's got the exact same name as a body of the WA, and was put on display for the entire world to see for over 3 days when its liberation was voted on. Don't try and tell me that this didn't acquire it some recognition.

HEREBY repeals “Liberate The Security Council,” as this resolution’s symbolic meaning has died, there is no risk of the region being invaded by anyone who did not originally inhabit it, and the region itself is not, in fact, an accurate representation of the actual World Assembly Security Council as a whole.

I think a mod somewhere advised against including arguments in the operative clauses. I don't think its a formal rule, but there's no reason to re-iterate your arguments (some of them for the 3rd time) at the end. And if Uni & I do 'control' the Security Council, as you seem to think, then surely the region is an accurate representation of the body...

So now I can't wrap up with a conclusion that involves a summary of the ideas expressed? If I just cut it off, that'd harly be good writing style, now would it?

[A mean old man]

Is this not the sort of 'meaningless resolutions that waste time' that you yourself, AMOM, dislike?

No, it's a repeal of a now-meaningless resolution. There's a difference.

What difference does it make whether or not this is in effect? The resolution it is repealing is pointless, but so is the resolution repealing it.

If it doesn't mean anything any more, why leave it standing? We don't want the WA to become out-of-date, do we?

[Topid]

I support. Our region's population is getting low, and I'd enjoy being able to point at a resolution AMOM submitted for political reasons when he calls foul if he thinks Uni or Sedge do so against raiders.

[A mean old man]

Here we go with the "personal vendetta" conspiracy theories again - even so, I'm glad you support this, as it is obviously a perfectly reasonable resolution.

[Topid]

Here we go with the "personal vendetta" conspiracy theories again - even so, I'm glad you support this, as it is obviously a perfectly reasonable resolution.

Your understanding and noticing lines are politically motivated. Not to mention the noticing line is flat out wrong because the only commendation of a raider was written on our boards.

I support it despite the fact it isn't a perfectly reasonable resolution because I stand to gain by it's passing. There's a difference.

EDIT: And because that was a pretty sly move to warn me my puppet had CTE in order to get that quote.

[Kalibarr]

Here we go with the "personal vendetta" conspiracy theories again - even so, I'm glad you support this, as it is obviously a perfectly reasonable resolution.

Your understanding and noticing lines are politically motivated. Not to mention the noticing line is flat out wrong because the only commendation of a raider was written on our boards.

Really? you took out most of the stuff involving Todds raider history.

As well, I have seen many others. Which failed or never made it out of draft.

[Topid]

Here we go with the "personal vendetta" conspiracy theories again - even so, I'm glad you support this, as it is obviously a perfectly reasonable resolution.

Your understanding and noticing lines are politically motivated. Not to mention the noticing line is flat out wrong because the only commendation of a raider was written on our boards.

Really? you took out most of the stuff involving Todds raider history.

As well, I have seen many others. Which failed or never made it out of draft.

And yet it remains the only commendation of a raider with raider reasons cited. I recieved telegrams from a good deal of delegates refusing to approve any commendation of a raider, despite how many other reasons there are to commend them. So commending any other raider is going to be a sucky task for anyone who tries to tackle it. Other than Evil Wolf, who I believe said no.

[A mean old man]

Here we go with the "personal vendetta" conspiracy theories again - even so, I'm glad you support this, as it is obviously a perfectly reasonable resolution.

Your understanding and noticing lines are politically motivated. Not to mention the noticing line is flat out wrong because the only commendation of a raider was written on our boards.

Um, notice the word "certain..."

I support it despite the fact it isn't a perfectly reasonable resolution because I stand to gain by it's passing. There's a difference.

Whatever; I guess if your support is all about personal gain, that's your problem.

EDIT: And because that was a pretty sly move to warn me my puppet had CTE in order to get that quote.

I'm a smart guy, I guess.

[Kalibarr]

Here we go with the "personal vendetta" conspiracy theories again - even so, I'm glad you support this, as it is obviously a perfectly reasonable resolution.

Your understanding and noticing lines are politically motivated. Not to mention the noticing line is flat out wrong because the only commendation of a raider was written on our boards.

Really? you took out most of the stuff involving Todds raider history.

As well, I have seen many others. Which failed or never made it out of draft.

And yet it remains the only commendation of a raider with raider reasons cited. I recieved telegrams from a good deal of delegates refusing to approve any commendation of a raider, despite how many other reasons there are to commend them. So commending any other raider is going to be a sucky task for anyone who tries to tackle it. Other than Evil Wolf, who I believe said no.

Given nearly 100% of raiders hate C&CS anyway, there is no one else to Commend.