Repeal:Liberate Confederation of Corrupt Dictators [closed]

[Caracasus]

Yeah basically this. Weirdly their leader (Jocospur) seemed actually on board with those suggestions. It wasn't until their WA delegate llamaland put him in his place that they were turned down.

OOC:Just for note, SLL was never delegate

Eh. Whoever they are, they seem to be the one pulling the strings.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:Just for note, SLL was never delegate

Eh. Whoever they are, they seem to be the one pulling the strings.

OOC:actually, SLL was delegate back in 2016 for a short period of time.

[Eumaeus]

Noting that every independent region and its citizens have the right to self determination, and that all nations have joined the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators voluntarily, and are in agreement with our ideas;

Whose ideas are being referred to here? CCD's?

[The New California Republic]

Noting that every independent region and its citizens have the right to self determination, and that all nations have joined the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators voluntarily, and are in agreement with our ideas;

Whose ideas are being referred to here? CCD's?

Since it is a self-repeal, I'm going to guess so, yes.

[Marrum Graecia]

I find it important to highlight the reasoning behind this "self-repeal" you all condemned.

You cannot be against any region and their embassy choices, nor their ideology without solid proof that it causes harm to other regions. We are not the only region to be raiding, nor the only region to have far-right AND, to your surprise, far left elements within our ranks. If your problem is the contents of the proposal, that can be fixed in another one. But if your problem with the CCD is personal, in my opinion, you do not deserve your positions as Delegates. It's just childish.

[Eumaeus]

I find it important to highlight the reasoning behind this "self-repeal" you all condemned.

You cannot be against any region and their embassy choices, nor their ideology without solid proof that it causes harm to other regions. We are not the only region to be raiding, nor the only region to have far-right AND, to your surprise, far left elements within our ranks. If your problem is the contents of the proposal, that can be fixed in another one. But if your problem with the CCD is personal, in my opinion, you do not deserve your positions as Delegates. It's just childish.

So... are you just going to ignoring my question?

Noting that every independent region and its citizens have the right to self determination, and that all nations have joined the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators voluntarily, and are in agreement with our ideas;

Whose ideas are being referred to here? CCD's?

[Marrum Graecia]

Ah, excuse me. As you can find out for yourself, I am a new member in the Confederation, and I am only trying to help the region. It is not the CCD's ideas, I am making a reference to every region's right. It's not a right the CCD holds exclusively, but what every region should hold.

[The New California Republic]

You cannot be against any region and their embassy choices, nor their ideology without solid proof that it causes harm to other regions.

According to...what, exactly? What dark recess has this concept been pulled from?

We are not the only region to be raiding, nor the only region to have far-right AND, to your surprise, far left elements within our ranks.

Not the reasons that people hate the CCD.

If your problem is the contents of the proposal, that can be fixed in another one.

Not if the authors are from the CCD.

[Armaros]

I find it important to highlight the reasoning behind this "self-repeal" you all condemned.

You cannot be against any region and their embassy choices, nor their ideology without solid proof that it causes harm to other regions. We are not the only region to be raiding, nor the only region to have far-right AND, to your surprise, far left elements within our ranks. If your problem is the contents of the proposal, that can be fixed in another one. But if your problem with the CCD is personal, in my opinion, you do not deserve your positions as Delegates. It's just childish.

I think you will find that many of us are not delegates.

You have also not responded to any concerns listed in this thread.

[Marrum Graecia]

I don't find it productive to reply to WA stereotypes regarding self-repeals, if that's what you mean.

[Eumaeus]

Ah, excuse me. As you can find out for yourself, I am a new member in the Confederation, and I am only trying to help the region. It is not the CCD's ideas, I am making a reference to every region's right. It's not a right the CCD holds exclusively, but what every region should hold.

Just to make sure I am understanding correctly, the "our" is referring to CCD but is not meant to imply that it is an idea exclusive to CCD?

[Marrum Graecia]

Ah, excuse me. As you can find out for yourself, I am a new member in the Confederation, and I am only trying to help the region. It is not the CCD's ideas, I am making a reference to every region's right. It's not a right the CCD holds exclusively, but what every region should hold.

Just to make sure I am understanding correctly, the "our" is referring to CCD but is not meant to imply that it is an idea exclusive to CCD?

Yes.

[The New California Republic]

I don't find it productive to reply to WA stereotypes regarding self-repeals, if that's what you mean.

There have been plenty of other criticisms in this thread that have been flat-out ignored. And self-repeal is a legitimate criticism.

[Marrum Graecia]

I don't find it productive to reply to WA stereotypes regarding self-repeals, if that's what you mean.

There have been plenty of other criticisms in this thread that have been flat-out ignored. And self-repeal is a legitimate criticism.

To you, maybe. To me, it isn't.

[The New California Republic]

There have been plenty of other criticisms in this thread that have been flat-out ignored. And self-repeal is a legitimate criticism.

To you, maybe. To me, it isn't.

Not just to me, much of the WA frowns on things like self-commend/repeal. It's a legitimate criticism regardless of whether you think it is or not.

And that doesn't excuse the fact that other criticisms in this thread have been ignored.

[Eumaeus]

Just to make sure I am understanding correctly, the "our" is referring to CCD but is not meant to imply that it is an idea exclusive to CCD?

Yes.

If that is the case, the proposal is in violation of Rule 4d, as it is pretty clearly being written from the perspective of a member of CCD rather than from the perspective of the World Assembly.

[Marrum Graecia]

Since I acknowledge what criticism and self-assessment are, I will strike this down before it goes into voting. Not that it would anyway with the two voting blocs being directly opposed to it since I did not create the thread BEFORE I draft the proposal. Thank you for your time and have a good day.

[Armaros]

I don't find it productive to reply to WA stereotypes regarding self-repeals, if that's what you mean.

Plenty of other concerns have been raised which you haven't responded to, either. I can't tell wether you are trying to avoid answering them, or you just haven't read the thread.

[The New California Republic]

Not that it would anyway with the two voting blocs being directly opposed to it since I did not create the thread BEFORE I draft the proposal.

Yeah it's a good idea to draft here before submission, rather than posting it on the forums after submission, as by that point it's pretty much pointless, as any amendments cannot be included in the submission by that point.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Yes.

If that is the case, the proposal is in violation Rule 4d, as it is pretty clearly being written from the perspective of a member of CCD rather than from the perspective of the World Assembly.

Nice catch.

[Kranostav]

I find it important to highlight the reasoning behind this "self-repeal" you all condemned.

You cannot be against any region and their embassy choices, nor their ideology without solid proof that it causes harm to other regions. We are not the only region to be raiding, nor the only region to have far-right AND, to your surprise, far left elements within our ranks. If your problem is the contents of the proposal, that can be fixed in another one. But if your problem with the CCD is personal, in my opinion, you do not deserve your positions as Delegates. It's just childish.

Hi, local NS conservative here.

For starters, associating yourselves with extremist communities generally acknowledges their existence, and as such gives them power to continue to exist. Increasing the power and recognition of fringe extremist groups is obviously bad for those they oppress and/or harm by spreading hatred and whatnot.
Secondly, there is plenty reason to have issue with CCD. They have acted immaturely on the international stage, are fairly tone deaf to the movements of the WA, and have not made any incredibly meaningful strides in correcting behavior that has been pointed out as wrong by various members of this community. I was not aware you were the harbinger of truth on who actually deserves their role of delegate, please enlighten me further.

Ah, excuse me. As you can find out for yourself, I am a new member in the Confederation, and I am only trying to help the region. It is not the CCD's ideas, I am making a reference to every region's right. It's not a right the CCD holds exclusively, but what every region should hold.

'Helping' the region probably doesn't involve ignoring legitimate criticism, calling those who disagree with you childish, and saying that delegates who don't give support are not deserving of their position. Its a bold FA strategy, but probably not an effective one... Just a guess tho.

[Eumaeus]

Written after the rest of the post: I just finished this, but it seems the author is dropping the proposal. I'll post anyways because I did the work, and should the author return to this it may be helpful.

---

Before I get started with providing feedback, I need to make a few things clear:

I am not against this proposal simply because I do not like CCD: Security Council norms regarding preemptive Liberations have changed greatly since the earlier days of my career in the SC. I remember a time when the multiple attempts to Liberate The Black Riders following its founder being deleted were shot down on the basis that the Security Council should not be involved offensive gameplay. My opinion of preemptive Liberations has become fairly solid over the years, and that opinion is a hard "No." I dislike CCD, I dislike its ideologies, I dislike the ways in which it conducts itself, and generally I feel the same sentiments expressed in the text of the Liberation itself, but I do not see them as sufficient reason for the Security Council to attack a region's sovereignty. I understand why those who support doing so feel the way they do, which is why I choose not to cause a fuss when the topic arises, but I am categorically against preemptive resolutions except in perhaps the most extreme of circumstances.

I am not against this proposal simply because it is a self-repeal: take a look at my own legislative history and my reasoning becomes clear. Every single successful resolution I have ever written was a self-repeal (two were repeals of Condemnations of regions I was an officer in and one was of a Liberation of a region I personally infiltrated, locked, purged, and forcibly refounded), so clearly I'm not in a position to criticize on that matter. I will acknowledge though that this situation is quite different from my own.

I am against this resolution, however, for two reasons:
1) While I hesitate to say "it is poorly written", it does have several mistakes. I am not hesitating, however, to say that is poorly argued. There are legitimate reasons to consider a repeal, but the authors have chosen to focus their attention on weaker and at times superfluous arguments, resulting in a proposal that comes off as recalcitrant.

2) I find one of the authors' attitudes less than impressive.

Regardless, my personal policy is provide as much constructive feedback as possible to anyone who posts on this forum, so my advice is as follows:

The Security Council,

Pleased by the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators' attempts at creating a democratic assembly called the Civil Congress;

The region's name should be possessive. I would usually say something about embarrassing mistakes like this being the reason that drafting is important, but you are "not gonna be stopped by WA stereotypes", so I'll just hold my tongue.

After reading the relevant dispatches, this legislature seems to lack much actual control over anything. It's powers including commending and condemning nations (sorry make that recommend and censure), donate IC currency to branches of government, create endorsement embargoes, expel nations from itself, elect and impeach a Chairman, repeal previous motions, but my personal favorite ability has to be miscellaneous supplementary motions that surprise surprise "cannot in any way interfere with Imperial Law". It could not be more clear that this is simply a means of appeasing critics, and it only took about two minutes of research to come to that conclusion. It's a pretty bad sign when the "democratic assembly" isn't even mentioned in the official Government within the Confederation dispatch.

You can go ahead and mention it if you want, this is a repeal after all and not commendation, but at the very least you should use more forceful language. "Pleased by the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators' creation of a democratic assembly called the Civil Congress" sounds a lot less like "well, they tried I guess".

Reminding that every independent region within the multiverse has the right to determine its own foreign policy and should not be condemned about it;

That is a sentiment that few would agree with. Invasion and raiding is, after all, foreign policy. I don't mean this as disagreement (although I do disagree with you). I am bringing this up because the reality of the situation is that not everyone will agree with this sentiment, and will opt to keep it from being expressed in a SC Resolution where it is, frankly, completely unnecessary.

Noting that every independent region and its citizens have the right to self determination, and that all nations have joined the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators voluntarily, and are in agreement with our ideas;

Admittedly I did entrap the author into making it explicit, but based on their retroactive statements this is a Rule 4d violation.

Deeply Concerned about the previous Liberation Proposal, which was only drafted and spoke about ideological lines and is in violation of the right to self determination, both politically and culturally;

I am unsure of what the underlined section is trying to say. I think it is trying to say "which was only drafted along ideological lines", and "which only spoke about ideological lines" at the same time, but whatever the intended meaning is this fragment is coming together about as smoothly as two freight trains colliding. It desperately needs to be rephrased.

Worried by the futile attempts of other regions at discrediting and undermining the presence of the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators on the international stage;

I know this doesn't sound like feedback, but my first thought after reading this clause is "someone's salty". The fact that both authors are members of CCD will only make this clause sound worse to uninvolved parties, and will work against the proposal.

Celebrating the fact that the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators neither encourages nor discourages any ideology, and that everyone is welcome in the region;

Disgusted by certain accusations regarding promotion of far-right ideologies;

This is the point in the repeal where it would be appropriate to name the accusations, then refute them.

Outlining the existence of an Executive Founder that is part of the Governing Body of the Confederation, as well as the existence of Undersecretaries;

My advice regarding this clause is to provide an explanation as to why having an executive founder should justify repealing the liberation. I say this because the is an argument to be made here, but for whatever reason it is not being made.

Hereby REPEALS Security Council Resolution # 263 (Liberate Confederation Of Corrupt Dictators).

The operative clause should, like any other clause, start with a capitalized letter. Also, you forgot a period.

[Lord Dominator]

Pleased by the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators attempts at creating a democratic assembly called the Civil Congress;

Irrelevant to the actual Liberation, as democracy or lack thereof was not a concern in the Liveration.

Reminding that every independent region within the multiverse has the right to determine its own foreign policy and should not be condemned about it;

Historically speaking, this is false. Many regions have been condemned for their Foreign Policy, both here in the SC and on the lesser inter-regional level.

Noting that every independent region and its citizens have the right to self determination, and that all nations have joined the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators voluntarily, and are in agreement with our ideas;

Correct, but such self-determination hasn't been violated.

Deeply Concerned about the previous Liberation Proposal, which was only drafted and spoke about ideological lines and is in violation of the right to self determination, both politically and culturally;

Has your (the region's) right to determine your ideology been at all affected? Doesn't look like it to me.

Worried by the futile attempts of other regions at discrediting and undermining the presence of the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators on the international stage;

Irrelevant and ego-boosting.

Celebrating the fact that the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators neither encourages nor discourages any ideology, and that everyone is welcome in the region;

Disgusted by certain accusations regarding promotion of far-right ideologies;

That nazis/fascists are allowed in (by your own admission) and that attempted promotion of far-right idea promotion does not occur is unlikely to be believed.

Outlining the existence of an Executive Founder that is part of the Governing Body of the Confederation, as well as the existence of Undersecretaries;

...what?

hereby REPEALS Security Council Resolution # 263 (Liberate Confederation Of Corrupt Dictators)

Authored by Marrum Graecia
Co-Authored by 2nd Imperial German Reich

That you can only find other regional members to help you with this is telling about how far this will get.

[The New California Republic]

hereby REPEALS Security Council Resolution # 263 (Liberate Confederation Of Corrupt Dictators)

Authored by Marrum Graecia
Co-Authored by 2nd Imperial German Reich

That you can only find other regional members to help you with this is telling about how far this will get.

The submission has been withdrawn. We can but hope that it will stay that way...

[Vivolkha]

Hoping to warn both Confederation of Corrupt Dictators and future regions from promoting fascism, other such ideologies, and blatant use of this Assembly as recruitment and ego-boosting;

(Bold mine for emphasis)
OOC: This is from the very resolution you are trying to (self-)repeal. Clearly nothing has changed.