[DISCARDED] Commend Auralia

[Sedgistan]

After conducting some research, I've decided my nation's first foray into the World Assembly will be a commendation of Auralia. He deserves it, and I think it's a shame that at least four drafts have previously been written commending him, but they have all failed. I suppose it's just as well - I like a challenge.

I'd like to thank SkyDip for his handy New Guide to the Security Council and for his many passed resolutions which I used as a template!

Commend Auralia

Category: Commendation | Nominee: Auralia | Proposed By: Afrasiab

---

Description: The Security Council,

RECOGNIZING Auralia as one of the most prolific General Assembly authors of all time, having passed twelve resolutions to date;

PRAISING Auralia's commitment to promoting economic development and international trade, especially through the following resolutions:

• GA#209 (World Assembly Trade Rights), which promotes free trade by prohibiting discrimination in international trade between World Assembly member states,
• GA#226 (WA Development Foundation), which encourages foreign investment and structural adjustments in developing World Assembly member states,
• GA#232 (Foreign Copyright Recognition), which provides legal recognition and protection for copyright in all World Assembly member states,
• GA#256 (Foreign Trademark Recognition), which provides legal recognition and protection for trademarks in all World Assembly member states;

APPLAUDING Auralia's repeals of poorly written environmental legislation, including the following resolutions:

• GA#246 (Repeal "Vehicle Emissions Convention"), which repealed a resolution that arbitrarily required World Assembly member states to implement a progressive schedule for automobile emissions reduction regardless of their current emissions levels,
• GA#262 (Repeal "Rainforest Protection Act"), which repealed a resolution that needlessly prohibited certain farming and mining practices in rainforests,
• GA#283 (Repeal "Industrial Pollution Control"), which repealed a resolution that contained vague and contradictory pollution reduction mandates;

NOTING WITH INTEREST Auralia's vision for the General Assembly, particularly the nation's planned reforms to the de facto constitution of the World Assembly, GA#2 (Rights and Duties of WA States);

GRATEFUL for Auralia's many technical and administrative contributions to the General Assembly and the NationStates community at large, including:

• a comprehensive list of passed General Assembly resolutions by author,
• a tool that allows nations to easily communicate with a vast number of other nations,
• another tool that allows nations to easily manage protectorates;

ADMIRING Auralia's contributions to Lazarus and the South Pacific as a World Assembly adviser to both regions, and to the nation's home region of Catholic as a former delegate and member of the High Council of that region;

BELIEVING that Auralia's substantial contributions to the international community make the nation a worthy nominee for commendation by the Security Council;

HEREBY COMMENDS Auralia.

[SkyDip]

A nice draft. I would mention that you can't have links in a proposal text, so those should be removed at submission, if not here in the drafting stage. Good luck is about all else I have to offer, frankly. You've got four previous drafts to slick information off of and a lot of WA authorship to cover. I would try to beef any sections that don't deal strictly with WA affairs, since most will see this is only Commending for resolution-writing.

[Cerian Quilor]

As someone who almost always ignores the GA, I'm going to need to know why else I should care about this person - what else have they done, like SkyDip says.

[Afrasiab]

I would mention that you can't have links in a proposal text, so those should be removed at submission, if not here in the drafting stage.

Really? Where does it say that in the rules?

As someone who almost always ignores the GA, I'm going to need to know why else I should care about this person - what else have they done, like SkyDip says.

With all due respect, the fact that you don't participate in the GA doesn't mean that contributions to the GA are worthless.

[SkyDip]

I would mention that you can't have links in a proposal text, so those should be removed at submission, if not here in the drafting stage.

Really? Where does it say that in the rules?

Right here:

Actual links to WA resolutions are not possible within proposals. However, SC resolutions can cite passed Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, as "C&Cs and Liberations are for the way things are at the moment and not intended to affect other resolutions" (ref. here).

As someone who almost always ignores the GA, I'm going to need to know why else I should care about this person - what else have they done, like SkyDip says.

With all due respect, the fact that you don't participate in the GA doesn't mean that contributions to the GA are worthless.

That's not what Cerian was saying. If you took away Auralia's authorship, what are we left with? If the answer your draft gives us is "not much," you probably need more material. Right now, this leans pretty heavily on authorship alone. You only have a three-clause draft without it (Observing, Grateful, Believing, if you are so generous as to count the Believing clause).

[Hakio]

No! If anything the nation of Auralia should be condemned for it's public disclosure of the fact that they are currently and blatantly refusing to comply with 3 GA resolutions, ALL having to do with civil rights.

Source: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=aura ... k/id=51011

GAR #15: Freedom of Marriage Act – This resolution compels nations to recognize same-sex marriage. This is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Church states that same-sex relationships are contrary to the moral law because they "close the sexual act to the gift of life" and "do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity". (CCC 2357)

The Auralian government has chosen to restrict marriage to couples capable of engaging in vaginal intercourse. Although this has the largely the same effect as sex or gender discrimination, in that, in general, only opposite sex couples are capable of performing vaginal intercourse, the two forms of discrimination are not equivalent and so the resolution's provisions are not contravened.

GAR #91: A Convention on Gender – This resolution compels nations to provide legal recognition for gender changes. This is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Church states that sex is an immutable characteristic: "God created man in his own image [and] male and female he created them." (CCC 2331)

The Auralian government has decided to exclusively use "sex at birth" rather than "gender" for all state purposes. Although this has largely the same effect as refusing to recognize gender changes, sex is distinct from gender, so the resolution's requirements do not apply.

GAR #128: On Abortion – This resolution requires nations to legalize abortion in certain cases. This is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Church states that that abortion "is gravely contrary to the moral law" as "life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception." (CCC 2271)

The Auralian government has opted to impose a ban on the trafficking of medical supplies and equipment used for abortion. (We satisfy the abortion facilities mandate by referring people overseas.) The punishment for such trafficking is comparable to that of manslaughter. As such, while abortion remains technically legal for the cases outlined in the resolution, the ban on trafficking makes it effectively impossible to acquire an abortion in practice, and no legal abortions have taken place in Auralia since the introduction of this ban.

[SkyDip]

<snip>

Dumb argument IMO. I hardly acknowledge the GA exists, let alone abide by it's rules. Where's my red badge?

[Afrasiab]

Right here:

Actual links to WA resolutions are not possible within proposals. However, SC resolutions can cite passed Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, as "C&Cs and Liberations are for the way things are at the moment and not intended to affect other resolutions" (ref. here).

It is technically possible to include links to GA resolutions within a proposal, so unless the rule is stating that it is not allowed to include such links, I don't see the problem. Also, does that rule apply to forum links as well?

That's not what Cerian was saying. If you took away Auralia's authorship, what are we left with? If the answer your draft gives us is "not much," you probably need more material. Right now, this leans pretty heavily on authorship alone. You only have a three-clause draft without it (Observing, Grateful, Believing, if you are so generous as to count the Believing clause).

Only the first three clauses discuss raw authorship. The remainder discuss Auralia's other contributions to the General Assembly and the game at large.

No! If anything the nation of Auralia should be condemned for it's public disclosure of the fact that they are currently and blatantly refusing to comply with 3 GA resolutions, ALL having to do with civil rights.

We're well aware of that statement, and we don't really care.

[SkyDip]

Right here:

It is technically possible to include links to GA resolutions within a proposal, so unless the rule is stating that it is not allowed to include such links, I don't see the problem. Also, does that rule apply to forum links as well?

I've asked for some mod clarity on the matter.

[Afrasiab]

It is technically possible to include links to GA resolutions within a proposal, so unless the rule is stating that it is not allowed to include such links, I don't see the problem. Also, does that rule apply to forum links as well?

I've asked for some mod clarity on the matter.

Thank you!

[Hakio]

<snip>

Dumb argument IMO. I hardly acknowledge the GA exists, let alone abide by it's rules. Where's my red badge?

Yes, but you do not actively try to dismantle everything in the World Assembly. He is also currently attempting the repeal Rights and Duties of WA States which would shake the very foundation of which this Assembly is based off of!

[Afrasiab]

Dumb argument IMO. I hardly acknowledge the GA exists, let alone abide by it's rules. Where's my red badge?

Yes, but you do not actively try to dismantle everything in the World Assembly. He is also currently attempting the repeal Rights and Duties of WA States which would shake the very foundation of which this Assembly is based off of!

Actually, he's trying to replace it with what I believe is actually a better document.

[SkyDip]

Dumb argument IMO. I hardly acknowledge the GA exists, let alone abide by it's rules. Where's my red badge?

Yes, but you do not actively try to dismantle everything in the World Assembly. He is also currently attempting the repeal Rights and Duties of WA States which would shake the very foundation of which this Assembly is based off of!

Look at my sig -

SkyDip's actions have, ultimately, destroyed the World Assembly.

I didn't "try to dismantle everything in the World Assembly" - I fucking succeeded in that endeavor already.

---

Agreed with OP. He's got a replacement in the wings. Not like he's repealing it for shits and giggles.

[Hakio]

You're praising him for his vision of trying to completely change what the WA is about. Nice.

[SkyDip]

You're praisibg him for his vision of tryibg to completely change what the WA is about. Nice.

Now you're just erecting strawmen. I'm arguing - to your point - that Auralia has what he thinks is a viable reason for repealing that resolution. I'm not doing any kind of praising just because he is stirring up the GA. I don't think he's doing that at all.

[Hakio]

You're praisibg him for his vision of tryibg to completely change what the WA is about. Nice.

Now you're just erecting strawmen. I'm arguing - to your point - that Auralia has what he thinks is a viable reason for repealing that resolution. I'm not doing any kind of praising just because he is stirring up the GA. I don't think he's doing that at all.

I'm not erecting a straw man. He has only ever attempted to repeal legislature that didn't fit in with his procorporate moralistic agenda.

[SkyDip]

Now you're just erecting strawmen. I'm arguing - to your point - that Auralia has what he thinks is a viable reason for repealing that resolution. I'm not doing any kind of praising just because he is stirring up the GA. I don't think he's doing that at all.

I'm not erectibg a straw man. He has only ecer attempted to repeal legislature that didnt't fit in witb his procorporate moralistic agenda.

You misrepresented my argument in order to make it easier to attack. That's the definition of a strawman.

I, in no way, said I am praising Auralia for repealing just to repeal, because I don't think that's what he's doing. Your assertion as to such is frankly completely undermined by the fact that he has a replacement for GAR#2 written already.

[Hakio]

I'm not erectibg a straw man. He has only ecer attempted to repeal legislature that didnt't fit in witb his procorporate moralistic agenda.

You misrepresented my argument in order to make it easier to attack. That's the definition of a strawman.

I, in no way, said I am praising Auralia for repealing just to repeal, because I don't think that's what he's doing. Your assertion as to such is frankly completely undermined by the fact that he has a replacement for GAR#2 written already.

He's attempting to create a new standard for the duties and expectations of WA states to fit his worldview and allow more leeway for himself to break the rules in a piece of legislature that will never pass because it repeatedly acknowledges the game and violates many rules of proposals. So you're telling me that him attempting to repeal an extraordinarily important document on the grounds that he promises to submit an alternative that will never pass is justified?

[SkyDip]

You misrepresented my argument in order to make it easier to attack. That's the definition of a strawman.

I, in no way, said I am praising Auralia for repealing just to repeal, because I don't think that's what he's doing. Your assertion as to such is frankly completely undermined by the fact that he has a replacement for GAR#2 written already.

He's attempting to create a new standard for the duties and expectations of WA states to fit his worldview and allow more leeway for himself to break the rules in a piece of legislature that will never pass because it repeatedly acknowledges the game and violates many rules of proposals. So you're telling me that him attempting to repeal an extraordinarily important document on the grounds that he promises to submit an alternative that will never pass is justified?

• You have no idea if it would pass or not, and assuming otherwise is moronic.
• Have you seen the new draft (honest question - I have no idea if it's posted in the GA forums and I won't be checking)? What can you point to there that demonstrates favorable changes for Auralia alone? If you can demonstrate to me that the new bill only favors Auralia, you might have an argument.
• "So you're telling me that him attempting to repeal an extraordinarily important document on the grounds that he promises to submit an alternative that will never pass is justified?" Of course it is. It's as good, if not better, a reason than most GA bills have behind them.

[SkyDip]

Yes, but you do not actively try to dismantle everything in the World Assembly. He is also currently attempting the repeal Rights and Duties of WA States which would shake the very foundation of which this Assembly is based off of!

Actually, he's trying to replace it with what I believe is actually a better document.

RE: This, Sedge pointed out that the URL rule is found here, not where I linked, but it is a rule.

[Sedgistan]

New ruling - links to passed (even repealed) GA/SC resolutions are fine; links to forum threads remain illegal.

[Afrasiab]

RE: This, Sedge pointed out that the URL rule is found here, not where I linked, but it is a rule.

New ruling - links to passed (even repealed) GA/SC resolutions are fine; links to forum threads remain illegal.

Thanks for letting me know. I'll remove the forum links in the actual proposal.

[Bears Armed]

New ruling - links to passed (even repealed) GA/SC resolutions are fine; links to forum threads remain illegal.

In the GA's case, though, presumably still subject to the 'House of Cards' rule?

[Sedgistan]

I'm ruling on linking them in SC proposals only, and "House of Cards" doesn't apply to the SC.

[Sciongrad]

<snip>

Dumb argument IMO. I hardly acknowledge the GA exists, let alone abide by it's rules. Where's my red badge?

I would buy this argument as one against a commendation. Unless the author can present a compelling argument explaining why it is a good idea for the Security Council to repudiate the validity of the General Assembly, then neither I nor anyone else should be expected to support this. I mean, you're commending him for his General Assembly contributions, yet you fail to take into account the fact that he creatively complies with existing resolutions to contravene their intended effects? Auralia has certainly had an impact on the General Assembly, but I can't reconcile their non-compliance with whatever positive contributions he's had.