[DEFEATED] Repeal "Condemn Vandoosa"

[Cormac Stark]

I don't support this and, as the author of Condemn TBR, I definitely don't support the logic behind condemning only those who don't want to be condemned. We should condemn those worthy of in-character condemnation, full stop.

[Wallenburg]

Alarmed at the assertions that Vandoosa participated in raiding Alternate World History and is its current delegate to the World Assembly, both of which are incorrect,

I think focusing on the fact that there was no raid on AWH would be smart. Either way this sentence does not flow well.

The structure seems fine to me.

Dismissing the claim that the Glorious Nations of Iwaku have fallen apart due to Vandoosa's actions. On the contrary, the region has not fallen at all, and is actually quite healthy;

I'm not liking the word "healthy" here. "Doing well" or something like that would sound better.

I'll think about it.

Questioning Vandoosa's true impact on the international community, and the lack of evidence for many of the claims in the condemnation of Vandoosa.

This clause interupts a chain of thought, and should be moved. Switching it with the clause above would be best.

*grabs scissors* On it.

Noting the dissonance of condemning Vandoosa for supposedly injuring the Glorious Nations of Iwaku, yet explicitly stating the further injury of this region's activity as one of the condemnation's main goals;

Believing that nations should not be condemned on false pretenses;

Observing no benefit to any nation but Vandoosa itself in the continued existence of SC#188;

I still dislike this clause.

Which one? You quoted three of them.

[Emprie]

This is where I go on a little rant about these kinds of shenanigans. But first, a few constructs I want to lay down.

1. Anyone who takes pleasure in harming others is a filthy *words that would get me banned*. If you think your funny or cute by doing that, then by all means burn in hell.

2. I got a message to vote for this measure, but nothing to vote against it. I sense copious amounts of whippersnapperism.

3. Simply put, I am all for the idealism of "Republic Sovereignty", of which in short, means that nations may rule themselves however they please outside of following international law.

Now...


What I see here is a dramatic flame war that makes no sense in hell. If you have issues with people and regions, than lock them down with a password. If you have issues with other nations, block them. This, in my opinion, is limiting 1) a nations republic sovereignty, 2) creating drama thick enough to cut, bottle, and sell for $2.50 at the dollar store, and 3) creating blacklists against players,( which seems to be the only useful purpose of the Security Council, which could be good, but also quite harmful if used in the wrong application), is a perfect mixture for making any sane man, woman, or child raise an eyebrow.

Now, with that said, I have an issue with the author solicitation to nations that have just joined the Assembly. Personally, I have read up on all WA resolutions and the last month of drama from SC, and I think everything has been in good judgement with a few exceptions. This is one of them. Personally, I think you should simply ignore the foo who is messing up your regions, and carry on. However, at the same time, it seems like if the issue is not dealt with at this negotiating table, then issues will arise.

So........

Personally, I will not endorse this measure, but if its gets to the voting floor, then I will decide. But as of now all I see is drama, bs, and a bunch of salty *more words that would get me banned*.

As far as anyone else who is reading this forum and also got a message lobbying for votes, I would advise to do the same, as I do not think it is wise for a new member of the WA to join a lynch mob such as this (regardless if its lynching or un-lynching as in this case).

[Wallenburg]

This is where I go on a little rant about these kinds of shenanigans. But first, a few constructs I want to lay down.

1. Anyone who takes pleasure in harming others is a filthy *words that would get me banned*. If you think your funny or cute by doing that, then by all means burn in hell.

2. I got a message to vote for this measure, but nothing to vote against it. I sense copious amounts of whippersnapperism.

3. Simply put, I am all for the idealism of "Republic Sovereignty", of which in short, means that nations may rule themselves however they please outside of following international law.

I really don't see how any of this has to do with the text of my proposal.

What I see here is a dramatic flame war that makes no sense in hell.

If you think there's a flame war here, report it. The mods will tell you there isn't, because nothing here even approaches a flame war.

If you have issues with people and regions, than lock them down with a password. If you have issues with other nations, block them.

You shouldn't dictate regional or player policy. People can play how they want to play. Just because someone doesn't take precautions against raiders doesn't mean they deserve to have their region occupied. Just because someone doesn't foe another doesn't mean they deserve to get walls of actionable material thrown at them.

This, in my opinion, is limiting 1) a nations republic sovereignty,

Nothing in here limits anyone's sovereignty. The Security Council has no control over what nations can and cannot do.

2) creating drama thick enough to cut, bottle, and sell for $2.50 at the dollar store,

You seem to be the one most interested in creating drama.

and 3) creating blacklists against players,( which seems to be the only useful purpose of the Security Council, which could be good, but also quite harmful if used in the wrong application), is a perfect mixture for making any sane man, woman, or child raise an eyebrow.

I don't see any blacklists. Are you sure you actually read my proposal? Did you post in the wrong thread? Because so far nothing you have said actually applies to this proposal.

Now, with that said, I have an issue with the author solicitation to nations that have just joined the Assembly.

I can't control that you just joined the World Assembly, and quite frankly, I don't care. I sent you a harmless message asking you to look over and, kindly, to support my proposal. That is hardly improper; in fact, it is the only way to get something passed around here nowadays.

Personally, I have read up on all WA resolutions and the last month of drama from SC,

All of them? And only after having joined the WA three days ago? I call bullshit.

and I think everything has been in good judgement with a few exceptions. This is one of them.

No, it isn't. Why? First of all, it isn't a resolution.

Personally, I think you should simply ignore the foo who is messing up your regions, and carry on. However, at the same time, it seems like if the issue is not dealt with at this negotiating table, then issues will arise.

Nobody is messing up my region. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

Personally, I will not endorse this measure, but if its gets to the voting floor, then I will decide. But as of now all I see is drama, bs, and a bunch of salty *more words that would get me banned*.

I can see that in your post. Not in the proposal, however.

As far as anyone else who is reading this forum and also got a message lobbying for votes, I would advise to do the same, as I do not think it is wise for a new member of the WA to join a lynch mob such as this (regardless if its lynching or un-lynching as in this case).

This is far from a lynch mob. Honestly, I can't imagine how any of this could possibly pertain to my proposal. Are you sure you're on the right thread?

[We Are Not the NSA]

This is where I go on a little rant about these kinds of shenanigans. But first, a few constructs I want to lay down.

1. Anyone who takes pleasure in harming others is a filthy *words that would get me banned*. If you think your funny or cute by doing that, then by all means burn in hell.

I'm not sure if anyone has ever become a raider because they think it'd be funny.

2. I got a message to vote for this measure, but nothing to vote against it. I sense copious amounts of whippersnapperism.

That's because the author (I presume) is running a telegram campaign, and no one is running a counter campaign. Also, what does "whippersnapperism" mean? It doesn't make sense to me in this context.

3. Simply put, I am all for the idealism of "Republic Sovereignty", of which in short, means that nations may rule themselves however they please outside of following international law.

Now...


What I see here is a dramatic flame war that makes no sense in hell.

You know what really makes no sense in hell? The fact that you've interpreted this as a flame war.

If you have issues with people and regions, than lock them down with a password. If you have issues with other nations, block them. This, in my opinion, is limiting 1) a nations republic sovereignty,

Condemnations don't actually do anything. Also, this resolution is trying to repeal a condemnation, so your entire point is moot.

2) creating drama thick enough to cut, bottle, and sell for $2.50 at the dollar store,

This is a game. Games are entertaining. Drama is entertaining. I don't see the problem.

and 3) creating blacklists against players,( which seems to be the only useful purpose of the Security Council, which could be good, but also quite harmful if used in the wrong application), is a perfect mixture for making any sane man, woman, or child raise an eyebrow.

To clarify, are you questioning the reasons for the existence of the SC in general, or just for condemnations?

Now, with that said, I have an issue with the author solicitation to nations that have just joined the Assembly.

You can block WA campaign telegrams in your telegram settings, so complaining about receiving them is a bit pointless.

Personally, I have read up on all WA resolutions and the last month of drama from SC, and I think everything has been in good judgement with a few exceptions. This is one of them. Personally, I think you should simply ignore the foo who is messing up your regions, and carry on. However, at the same time, it seems like if the issue is not dealt with at this negotiating table, then issues will arise.

So........

Personally, I will not endorse this measure, but if its gets to the voting floor, then I will decide. But as of now all I see is drama, bs, and a bunch of salty *more words that would get me banned*.

This is easily one of the tamest SC threads I've ever seen.

As far as anyone else who is reading this forum and also got a message lobbying for votes, I would advise to do the same, as I do not think it is wise for a new member of the WA to join a lynch mob such as this (regardless if its lynching or un-lynching as in this case).

I'm honestly confused about what your point is now. Are you aware that this is a repeal? Are you not? Are you lobbying that we simply do nothing? The condemnation of Vandoosa and this repeal of said condemnation are fairly standard activities for the Security Council, I don't understand your assertion that they are insignificant.

[Emprie]

I didn't think that people on here were that near-sighted as to completely miss the point of my little 2 cents.

Oh well, your going to have to marinate on it if you want a clarification, because the text I typed up speaks for itself.

*walks out*

[We Are Not the NSA]

:shock: I didn't think that people on here were that near-sighted as to completely miss the point of my little 2 cents.

Oh well, your going to have to marinate on it if you want a clarification, because the text I typed up speaks for itself.

*walks out*

You know, refusing to make clarifications is only bolstering the appearance that you don't know what you're talking about.

[Wallenburg]

:shock: I didn't think that people on here were that near-sighted as to completely miss the point of my little 2 cents.

Oh well, your going to have to marinate on it if you want a clarification, because the text I typed up speaks for itself.

*walks out*

No, it doesn't speak for itself. Unless your message is that you didn't read the proposal and you have no idea how condemnations, repeals, or even raiding works. And I don't think you are trying to suggest that.

[Normlpeople]

Do you have any idea how many innocent souls Vandoosa has sacrificed to Ozoi, Belldandy, Azunyan and various other heathen dieties they worship?

They are evil personified and deserve to be condemned in the.strongest possible terms!

[Vandoosa]

Do you have any idea how many innocent souls Vandoosa has sacrificed to Ozoi, Belldandy, Azunyan and various other heathen dieties they worship?

They are evil personified and deserve to be condemned in the.strongest possible terms!

No sacrifices for Belldandy! She is my weakness! As for the others listed I won't say..



I just found this topic.. *blink*

*Stares at Wallenburg* Hewwo!


I've never done anything evil ever.. especially raiding and setting fires.. and knocking over embassies in stuff.. I am 100% mostly innocent angel!

[Wallenburg]

I'm not really sure how to respond to that.

[Leppikania]

I've never done anything evil ever.. especially raiding and setting fires.. and knocking over embassies in stuff.. I am 100% mostly innocent angel!

I assume that means Vandoosa Sechsunddreissig is not your puppet?

[Vandoosa]

I've never done anything evil ever.. especially raiding and setting fires.. and knocking over embassies in stuff.. I am 100% mostly innocent angel!

I assume that means Vandoosa Sechsunddreissig is not your puppet?

Oh.. that might be mine.. *blink*

[Leppikania]

I assume that means Vandoosa Sechsunddreissig is not your puppet?

Oh.. that might be mine.. *blink*

Well, according to my region's happenings, that nation hosted what could only be a failed tag raid.

[The Silver Sentinel]

Oh.. that might be mine.. *blink*

Well, according to my region's happenings, that nation hosted what could only be a failed tag raid.

On which region?

[Leppikania]

Well, according to my region's happenings, that nation hosted what could only be a failed tag raid.

On which region?

Oh. Right. I'm also in Danelaw. The failed tag raid I'm referring to was in West Atlantic Organization.

[Herby]

Do you have any idea how many innocent souls Vandoosa has sacrificed to Ozoi, Belldandy, Azunyan and various other heathen dieties they worship?

They are evil personified and deserve to be condemned in the.strongest possible terms!

No sacrifices for Belldandy! She is my weakness! As for the others listed I won't say..



I just found this topic.. *blink*

*Stares at Wallenburg* Hewwo!


I've never done anything evil ever.. especially raiding and setting fires.. and knocking over embassies in stuff.. I am 100% mostly innocent angel!

Okay that's just creepy. Against.

[Wallenburg]

No sacrifices for Belldandy! She is my weakness! As for the others listed I won't say..



I just found this topic.. *blink*

*Stares at Wallenburg* Hewwo!


I've never done anything evil ever.. especially raiding and setting fires.. and knocking over embassies in stuff.. I am 100% mostly innocent angel!

Okay that's just creepy. Against.

Wait...is everyone's favorite Volkswagen a puppet?!?

[Herby]

Okay that's just creepy. Against.

Wait...is everyone's favorite Volkswagen a puppet?!?

You just realized this now?

I gotta ask why you want to repeal this so bad. Like I said before I'm not buying the badge of honor argument. The rest is all iffy. Maybe it got a single fact wrong, on AWH. Big deal. Show me more.

[Wallenburg]

Wait...is everyone's favorite Volkswagen a puppet?!?

You just realized this now?

I gotta ask why you want to repeal this so bad. Like I said before I'm not buying the badge of honor argument. The rest is all iffy. Maybe it got a single fact wrong, on AWH. Big deal. Show me more.

It also states an intent to punish the Glorious Nations of Iwaku for their founder's actions.

[Herby]

You just realized this now?

I gotta ask why you want to repeal this so bad. Like I said before I'm not buying the badge of honor argument. The rest is all iffy. Maybe it got a single fact wrong, on AWH. Big deal. Show me more.

It also states an intent to punish the Glorious Nations of Iwaku for their founder's actions.

It does? Can you quote the line that does that? I admit my reading comprehension has fallen off in my old age but I can't see it.

[Wallenburg]

It also states an intent to punish the Glorious Nations of Iwaku for their founder's actions.

It does? Can you quote the line that does that? I admit my reading comprehension has fallen off in my old age but I can't see it.

Of course, my good friend. *pulls out ancient-looking spectacles* *Ahem!*

Understanding the importance of educating those who may seek to join The Glorious Nations of Iwaku in the future, as to the region founder’s true colors.

Wishing that those who may later seek to join the region, will think twice before doing so, having seen the condemned founder, and not wishing to affiliate themselves with such a nation.

This resolution refers to the region in question as "innocent" in a previous clause, and dubiously claims that Vandoosa has done great damage to its ranks, yet here it explicitly states an intent to discourage nations from migrating to this region. The target is all very confusing and self-contradictory, another reason I think that it should be scratched out.

[ChingisOtchigin]

I really don't see any problem here, it obviously states that it seeks to end any false pretenses that nations joining Iwaku may have. It never states that its target is to save the region or anything like that. The people joining should know who's region they're joining.

[Wallenburg]

I really don't see any problem here, it obviously states that it seeks to end any false pretenses that nations joining Iwaku may have. It never states that its target is to save the region or anything like that. The people joining should know who's region they're joining.

It decries Vandoosa's supposed role in injuring Iwaku, yet intentionally does even more to harm it. It describes Iwaku as innocent, yet punishes it for its founder. I'm not saying that the target should protect or aid Iwaku, but it definitely shouldn't try to hurt it when it condemns Vandoosa for doing the same. The target resolution is self-contradictory at best and downright hypocritical and malicious at worst.

[ChingisOtchigin]

Ugh
Why couldn't Tim just be faster.