Advertisement
by The Republic of Lanos » Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:28 am
by Ardchoille » Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:26 am
by Sedgistan » Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:24 am
A mean old man wrote:Well pardon me for the copy/paste error - perhaps you'd also like to take note that this title I placed in the description ends, then is followed by "The World Assembly,"
This takes debating to a new low, Sedgistan. I'm disappointed in what you're trying to say here. Let's be good sports.
Which also means it was purely symbolic, as the region itself was a representation of shitty proposal writing. Just as "The Security Council" is a representation of The Security Council...
It's not in the shadow of "the GA" - it's being discarded as being useless by a few diehard GA members. I think the same has happened as far on the SC side of the WA, has it not...?
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?
Of course its not officially linked, but people aren't stupid. They know that the region United Nations wasn't the old NSUN, and they know that the region The Security Council isn't the body. Also, I don't see how making this clear is an argument to repeal the liberation.
They may be "legal" - I never made any claim saying they were illegal. I also don't know why this liberation has to be tagged as "preventative" - Topid's active and we all know it.
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...
And just informing people that a "small group of individuals with the same general ideology" are not actually running the WASC is an argument to repeal the liberation, how?
Even if this wasn't the intent, the placement of a badge on this region is the only thing this resolution is doing now, and you should be against that, shouldn't you?
Gee, that "GA-SC split" thing wasn't stated anywhere in the resolution...
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.
Ah, right. The name has obviously helped get people there... but why on earth does the region using the name constitute an argument to repeal the liberation?
If I don't like to write in the same way that you do, I'm not going to do so. I like my writing style and I've heard that others like it, and I'd like to keep using it. Do you not like to see some variety every once in a while? I definitely do.
by Fotar » Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:31 am
by Urgench » Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:47 am
Fotar wrote:Once upon a time...a few years back, I was a frequent visitor to the WA forums to voice my opinion and such. Now I remember why I left. The personal attacks and squabbling are absurd. Are we debating this proposal, or pulling each other's hair in a 'he-said, she-said' high school feud?
I am a firm believer that liberations should only be used in the utmost of desperate situations...such as a region being griefed. Since the one thing both sides seem to agree on is that the original liberation has nothing to do with security, I am fully behind repealing it. I do not believe all the extras about the (WA) Security Council being more prevalent than the General Assembly are needed, but nor do I think they are enough to sink this.
by Ardchoille » Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:56 am
Urgench wrote:
Goodness and Narnians complaining and whinging about not being able to hack lively debate, more evidence that nothing ever changes. Yawn.
by Flibbleites » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:39 am
*Takes off belt and wraps it around his head.*Ardchoille wrote:Keep it clean, gents, keep it clean! No gouging, no clinching, no hitting below the belt.
by Glen-Rhodes » Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:17 am
A mean old man wrote: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
by A mean old man » Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:47 am
Glen-Rhodes wrote:A mean old man wrote: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
Exactly. Passing this repeal, saying it's lost its meaning, would be saying we no longer want those gameplay separations. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that's not the case.
by Sedgistan » Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:57 am
A mean old man wrote:Is there ANYTHING in the original resolution that says ANYTHING about the great schism?
No, I didn't think so.
We the Peoples of the Security Council,
Perceiving the short history of the Security Council so far, as an unsteady beginning -- one full of uncertainty and hesitancy;
Recalling the World Assembly, and at least one historical institution before that, whose beginnings were equally as unsteady;
Aware of the difference between the Security Council and these successful establishments lies not in their ideals, but their organization;
Determining that a higher degree of self-determination, and freedom is thus necessary for a successful establishment;
Whereas the World Assembly Security Council is disregarded as an international malingerer, a distraction from the imperative directives of the General Assembly;
Distressed to hear of potential authors of Security Council Resolutions who have decided not to pursue issues of international security out of fear, and intimidation from naysayers who have been attached to the Security Council not out of preference, but because of its association with the General Assembly -- which is not unlike the relationship of a child to its older brother;
Concerned that such a fraternal shadow may cast darkness over some pressing issues in our world;
Hereby, in the name of dedication to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, liberates the Security Council.
by A mean old man » Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:59 am
Sedgistan wrote:A mean old man wrote:Well pardon me for the copy/paste error - perhaps you'd also like to take note that this title I placed in the description ends, then is followed by "The World Assembly,"
This takes debating to a new low, Sedgistan. I'm disappointed in what you're trying to say here. Let's be good sports.
I've already acknowledged its a copy/paste error, but it also establishes a precedent of introducing yourself at the start of a resolution, which is why it shouldn't be there.
Which also means it was purely symbolic, as the region itself was a representation of shitty proposal writing. Just as "The Security Council" is a representation of The Security Council...
It was, for the resolution - but I don't recall arguing that point.
It's not in the shadow of "the GA" - it's being discarded as being useless by a few diehard GA members. I think the same has happened as far on the SC side of the WA, has it not...?
So lets wait until the GA-SC split, and then repeal it.
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?
Of course its not officially linked, but people aren't stupid. They know that the region United Nations wasn't the old NSUN, and they know that the region The Security Council isn't the body. Also, I don't see how making this clear is an argument to repeal the liberation.
Sometimes statements must be made that help support the arguments made later. It's simply writing style. Maybe you're happy with a writing style that is the creation of a dull list of accusations that finishes off with no conclusion, but I most certainly am not.
It doesn't support any later argument though. This is an accusation without a conclusion about how it relates to repealing the resolution.
They may be "legal" - I never made any claim saying they were illegal. I also don't know why this liberation has to be tagged as "preventative" - Topid's active and we all know it.
Straw man. You know it was nothing to do with keeping the region secure, so attacking the resolution on the basis that its not needed for security is pointless.
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...
And just informing people that a "small group of individuals with the same general ideology" are not actually running the WASC is an argument to repeal the liberation, how?
It is an argument as to why the region does not accurately represent the WASC, which is what it has been made out to do in the liberation being repealed. Why do you have to make me repeat myself so often?
The region is run by a small group of individuals with the same general ideology - The WA is not. It's not that difficult to comprehend.
You're not answering the question. Your point is still not a reason to repeal the resolution. Its simply an unrelated point.
Even if this wasn't the intent, the placement of a badge on this region is the only thing this resolution is doing now, and you should be against that, shouldn't you?
Gee, that "GA-SC split" thing wasn't stated anywhere in the resolution...
No, the resolution is still showing support for the GA-SC split, and stands as a way of RPing that split.
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.
Ah, right. The name has obviously helped get people there... but why on earth does the region using the name constitute an argument to repeal the liberation?
I've said it before and I've said it again - the resolution purely symbolic and doesn't serve the purpose it was made for any more. Also, the region's got that name and isn't an accurate representation of the actual WASC. Must I repeat myself?
Nowhere in the text of the resolution does it say this is a "preventative" measure, either.
Isn't there a certain GA mod who says 'write to the category'? You've almost written a condemnation here, and tried to squeeze it into a repeal of a liberation. How would you see the region being an accurate representation of the actual WASC? Would it have to contain every single WA member?
If I don't like to write in the same way that you do, I'm not going to do so. I like my writing style and I've heard that others like it, and I'd like to keep using it. Do you not like to see some variety every once in a while? I definitely do.
I don't mind variety, but no - I don't like your writing style. I'm also fairly sure that putting arguments after the operative clauses is generally frowned upon.
by Glen-Rhodes » Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:17 am
A mean old man wrote:Is there ANYTHING in the original resolution that says ANYTHING about the great schism?
No, I didn't think so.
by Sedgistan » Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:18 am
A mean old man wrote:Remembering what you and Unibot had said back in the debate over whether raiding/defending should be used in C&C resolutions, this leads me to wonder why you believed then that precedents couldn't be set then, especially by myself, but now you believe that this miniscule detail, this mistake, will create some massive string of WA resolutions following this repeal that introduce the author at the beginning of the description...
Well what point did you argue, then?
It's lost its symbolic meaning already, why not get it overwith now? Why prolong the matter? The GA-SC split will be coming soon enough. If you can agree that it's supposed to be repealed sooner or later (Topid has spoken of possibly repealing it a while ago), and you and "The Security Council" team were going to do it sooner or later, aren't I just saving you all some time by doing it for you?
I don't see what the big deal is.
It's there to dispel any false opinions that may have been formulated by observing the text of the previous resolution. It's relevant. The only reason for opposing this simple, entirely true statement would be if you wanted people to be fooled. That's not what you want, right?
Not really; I've already shown you why liberations should be made for security purposes, and have already shown you the exact wording of the description of the "liberate" category itself - so I actually that's very relevant to this issue. There is no need to use the category of liberation and abuse its function in this way - if you want to make a statement, use a C/C.
I'm not repeating myself. What I said made enough sense, and if you're not willing to accept that, that's your problem.
This is entirely your interpretation of that resolution. Nowhere in it does it mention the GA-SC split. Nowhere. It talks of the GA's "fraternal shadow" and makes the SC look like some sad, dejected subject of the GA's abuse, which is no longer true.
If that's what you're after, commend a region that's supporting - not representing - the GA-SC split, don't mess around with the "liberate" category.
It's a repeal, not a condemnation. If it was to be a condemnation, the content would've been very, very different.
To be an accurate representation, it certainly shouldn't contain a small group of people of the same or similar ideologies, should it? We've already gone over that. I also think we've already gone over the fact that purely symbolic resolutions are currently not allowed by the moderators...
by Martyrdoom » Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:23 am
Sedgistan wrote:Can you come up with an example of someone who has/had a false opinion about the region being the organisation, or is this clause based on speculation?
by A mean old man » Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:35 am
by A mean old man » Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:37 am
Glen-Rhodes wrote:A mean old man wrote:Is there ANYTHING in the original resolution that says ANYTHING about the great schism?
No, I didn't think so.
The resolution was proposed to show that a consensus of players wanted the Security Council to be separated (ie liberated) from the General Assembly. Did you even read the liberation's forum topic? If you had, you would've been directed to this topic, in which you would have found this post and the posts after it.
by Sedgistan » Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:43 am
A mean old man wrote:
I can also think of a potential several thousand who might be and who never post here.
by A mean old man » Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:49 am
Sedgistan wrote:A mean old man wrote:Remembering what you and Unibot had said back in the debate over whether raiding/defending should be used in C&C resolutions, this leads me to wonder why you believed then that precedents couldn't be set then, especially by myself, but now you believe that this miniscule detail, this mistake, will create some massive string of WA resolutions following this repeal that introduce the author at the beginning of the description...
The raiding/defending in C&C resolutions really is a different debate. If this passes, I would be allowed to start any SC resolution I propose by announcing myself.
Well what point did you argue, then?
Several... but more that the fact that the region symbolised the organisation doesn't mean it has to somehow have a similar make-up to the organisation.
It's lost its symbolic meaning already, why not get it overwith now? Why prolong the matter? The GA-SC split will be coming soon enough. If you can agree that it's supposed to be repealed sooner or later (Topid has spoken of possibly repealing it a while ago), and you and "The Security Council" team were going to do it sooner or later, aren't I just saving you all some time by doing it for you?
I don't see what the big deal is.
I didn't say that the "TSC team" were going to repeal it - I don't think it was discussed. Why prolong the matter - because the argument still stands - we still need the SC split to allow it to function better.
Not really; I've already shown you why liberations should be made for security purposes, and have already shown you the exact wording of the description of the "liberate" category itself - so I actually that's very relevant to this issue. There is no need to use the category of liberation and abuse its function in this way - if you want to make a statement, use a C/C.
Using a C&C resolution would have been 'abuse' (your term) in the same way. Liberations are generally for security purposes, but you've yet to come up with a reason why they always have to be. The description isn't enough, as thats not a binding rule.
I'm not repeating myself. What I said made enough sense, and if you're not willing to accept that, that's your problem.
As above, the region doesn't have to have a similar make-up/ideology/whatever to the organisation for it to symbolise it.
This is entirely your interpretation of that resolution. Nowhere in it does it mention the GA-SC split. Nowhere. It talks of the GA's "fraternal shadow" and makes the SC look like some sad, dejected subject of the GA's abuse, which is no longer true.
If that's what you're after, commend a region that's supporting - not representing - the GA-SC split, don't mess around with the "liberate" category.
Go and read my post above, it can't call for rule changes, but 'liberation' is to be interpreted as liberating the SC from the GA. The resolution gives a load of reasons to do that.
Also, why can one type of resolution be used differently than intended, but not another?
It's a repeal, not a condemnation. If it was to be a condemnation, the content would've been very, very different.
Well I don't doubt you'd enjoy writing a condemnation of TSC, but you've included several cricitisms of it.
To be an accurate representation, it certainly shouldn't contain a small group of people of the same or similar ideologies, should it? We've already gone over that. I also think we've already gone over the fact that purely symbolic resolutions are currently not allowed by the moderators...
Before the liberation, the WFE described how TSC was being oppressed by the GA. That was what made it more than just symbolic.
by A mean old man » Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:53 am
Sedgistan wrote:A mean old man wrote:
I can also think of a potential several thousand who might be and who never post here.
You honestly think that people are stupid enough to mistake a region with the name "The Security Council" for the body of the WA called the "Security Council"?
Were you not also one of those people who thought I was being dismissive when I said not all natives would be able to write liberation resolutions?
by Sedgistan » Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:02 pm
A mean old man wrote:"If this passes." No, you could do that anyway, even if this didn't pass and even if this was never created.
I tend to disagree. Regions cannot represent anything other than regions. As I said, had it been promoting the end of the GA's "bullying" of the SC, it'd be entirely different, and this would be acceptable.
Um... the schism's happening anyway, whether this resolution (which still does not have anything to do with it) is in action or not...
Because they have a gameplay function. C&Cs do not. That's what I was trying to say and what you're trying to ignore.
Or you could commend a region promoting the GA-SC schism, as I suggested, and not promote the abuse the gameplay function of liberations.
No, I've made observations of its lack of diversity, lack of need for the functions of a liberation, etc., which are based on fact - they're not criticisms of it.
Before the liberation, the WFE described how TSC was being oppressed by the GA. That was what made it more than just symbolic.
by Sedgistan » Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:03 pm
A mean old man wrote:Apparently this one needs convincing.
My friend, "The Clairvoyant One," who is a rather intelligent person and helped me found and build my region, and who participates in WA affairs but does not get involved in the forums here to discuss them, thought that this was a liberation of the actual WASC until I had a conversation with him months ago about it. He wasn't happy.
Were you not also one of those people who thought I was being dismissive when I said not all natives would be able to write liberation resolutions?
by Kalibarr » Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:05 pm
Kalibarr & Martyrdoom both have nations there - they're raiders. Hardly a lack of diversity. And you fail to address the point that just because a region's name is used to symbolise the organisation doesn't mean that the region itself has to be a carbon copy of the World Assembly.
by Hiriaurtung Arororugul » Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:08 pm
Sedgistan wrote:I've already acknowledged its a copy/paste error, but it also establishes a precedent of introducing yourself at the start of a resolution, which is why it shouldn't be there..
by Kalibarr » Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:09 pm
Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:Sedgistan wrote:I've already acknowledged its a copy/paste error, but it also establishes a precedent of introducing yourself at the start of a resolution, which is why it shouldn't be there..
Oh I don't think it sets such a bad precedent.
by A mean old man » Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:13 pm
I tend to disagree. Regions cannot represent anything other than regions. As I said, had it been promoting the end of the GA's "bullying" of the SC, it'd be entirely different, and this would be acceptable.
You were happy for the region "Shitty Proposal Writing" to represent shitty proposal writing beforehand. That region was even against shitty proposal writing, while The Security Council's WFE said it was being oppressed by the GA.
Um... the schism's happening anyway, whether this resolution (which still does not have anything to do with it) is in action or not...
Repealing the resolution would suggest the players no longer supported the schism.
Because they have a gameplay function. C&Cs do not. That's what I was trying to say and what you're trying to ignore.
And what? They have a gameplay function, yes - but why does that mean that shouldn't be used for other things too?
Or you could commend a region promoting the GA-SC schism, as I suggested, and not promote the abuse the gameplay function of liberations.
Could've, but this worked just as well. I don't see how its abuse, and why liberation resolutions can't be used for other things simply because they have a gameplay function.
No, I've made observations of its lack of diversity, lack of need for the functions of a liberation, etc., which are based on fact - they're not criticisms of it.
Kalibarr & Martyrdoom both have nations there - they're raiders. Hardly a lack of diversity. And you fail to address the point that just because a region's name is used to symbolise the organisation doesn't mean that the region itself has to be a carbon copy of the World Assembly.
Before the liberation, the WFE described how TSC was being oppressed by the GA. That was what made it more than just symbolic.
That's all the resolution did, and it asked that the SC be safe from the GA's mean ol' iron fist.
Right, and now that its still not safe, you're reapealing it why?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Satanic Reds
Advertisement