[DRAFT] Repeal "Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders"

[Lord Dominator]

I've previously expressed views in the last attempt to repeal this that forum destruction is viewed as an OOC act worth blacklisting over. As such, it makes no sense to leave up an IC condemnation of such.

Category: Repeal
Resolution: 73
Author: Lord Dominator

The Security Council,

Holding both that acts of forum destruction are a terrible crime and that Allied States of EuroIslanders were accountable for the acts described in SC#73 Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders;

Observing that acts of forum destruction are almost always viewed as heinous crimes worthy of permanent shunning;

Noting that similar acts of forum destruction have not been viewed as worthy of condemnation and that recognition of them in any manner is considered antithetical to decent international society;

Concluding that SC#73 Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders should be repealed given that the described actions of forum destruction should not be recognized in any manner by this body;

Hereby repeals SC#73 Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders.

[Lord Dominator]

Further note, upon discussion with Dali I am open to 'replacing' it with a Liberation (though I understand the password is probably founder-imposed).

Edit: Which is to say, replacement with destruction in mind, though being unclear as to whether it'd affect anything.

[Praeceps]

I
Aware that this may not have been the case when SC#73 Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders;

Incomplete sentence. Should be "when [the resolution] was passed" I believe.

Concluding therefore that that SC#73 Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders should be repealed gived that the described actions of forum destruction are considered to be heinous crimes which are not to be recognized in any manner by the Security Council;

given*

[Honeydewistania]

Further note, upon discussion with Dali I am open to 'replacing' it with a Liberation (though I understand the password is probably founder-imposed).

Edit: Which is to say, replacement with destruction in mind, though being unclear as to whether it'd affect anything.

Actually, founder imposed passwords in a liberation don’t work if the founder ceases to exist

[Kuriko]

Further note, upon discussion with Dali I am open to 'replacing' it with a Liberation (though I understand the password is probably founder-imposed).

Edit: Which is to say, replacement with destruction in mind, though being unclear as to whether it'd affect anything.

Actually, founder imposed passwords in a liberation don’t work if the founder ceases to exist

A founder imposed password would still exist with a liberation in place after a founder is deleted or CTEs. The only time a liberation would remove a password is when it's been changed by an RO or Delegate.

[A Bloodred Moon]

Further note, upon discussion with Dali I am open to 'replacing' it with a Liberation (though I understand the password is probably founder-imposed).

Edit: Which is to say, replacement with destruction in mind, though being unclear as to whether it'd affect anything.

Another option would be to place the replacement liberation upon The Proletariat Coalition, which was just as guilty. They do not have a founder-imposed password and the liberation would actually do something.

I’d rather see the replacement before approving the repeal, personally.

[Numero Capitan]

Broken record time. The main reasons behind this condemnation were committed by allies of ASE, so this has never made sense - beyond people just not liking Eurosoviets and his attitude to this issue since. Was a stupid condemnation in the first place that should have been directed at the relevant individuals for individual actions.

With regard to a liberation. Given that we let a raider region off the hook for forum destruction after less than a few years (the Communications Officer of that region just posted above) but for some reason nations who weren't around at the time want to revisit this after fifteen years to enact some additional punishment just appears to be raiders wanting an excuse to raid rather than any kind of common sense.

The nations who committed forum destruction haven't shown their faces in this game for a decade - what is the point of a liberation other than promoting region destruction on the whim of those who like to partake in it

If we're going down that route I have plenty of viable candidates for future liberations...

[Lord Dominator]

I'm not particularly attached to the idea, I was throwing it out there as an alternate method

Edit: Which is to say, I'm not opposed to the idea, but probably won't be doing it myself

[Kuriko]

I'm in favor of repealing the condemnation, since all the others like it have been repealed as well. However, a liberation would be pointless and I would council against writing one.

[A Bloodred Moon]

Numero, using liberations as condemnations with teeth for OOC problems has been done before. I see no reason not to do it again, and replacing the more IC-aimed, harmless condemnation.

Besides, the last time you brought up this subject, you told everyone that the nations from TPC were responsible, not ASE. In theory, that would mean you shouldn’t be opposed to the idea of punishing TPC rather than ASE.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

Broken record time. The main reasons behind this condemnation were committed by allies of ASE, so this has never made sense - beyond people just not liking Eurosoviets and his attitude to this issue since. Was a stupid condemnation in the first place that should have been directed at the relevant individuals for individual actions.

With regard to a liberation. Given that we let a raider region off the hook for forum destruction after less than a few years (the Communications Officer of that region just posted above) but for some reason nations who weren't around at the time want to revisit this after fifteen years to enact some additional punishment just appears to be raiders wanting an excuse to raid rather than any kind of common sense.

The nations who committed forum destruction haven't shown their faces in this game for a decade - what is the point of a liberation other than promoting region destruction on the whim of those who like to partake in it

If we're going down that route I have plenty of viable candidates for future liberations...

I dunno, man. Every time Unknown winds up as the centre of attention, it's pretty clear that we were never "let off the hook".

[Lord Dominator]

I've made some edits, mainly to clean up wording.

[Honeydewistania]

Actually, founder imposed passwords in a liberation don’t work if the founder ceases to exist

A founder imposed password would still exist with a liberation in place after a founder is deleted or CTEs. The only time a liberation would remove a password is when it's been changed by an RO or Delegate.

For Politics Amino when the raid founder ceased to exist I could walk in despite the password being there in spirit, as when I entered the region the original password was visible to residents (like Belgium)

[Kuriko]

A founder imposed password would still exist with a liberation in place after a founder is deleted or CTEs. The only time a liberation would remove a password is when it's been changed by an RO or Delegate.

For Politics Amino when the raid founder ceased to exist I could walk in despite the password being there in spirit, as when I entered the region the original password was visible to residents (like Belgium)

There is no such thing as a "raid founder". A delegate or RO imposed password will be taken down by a liberation, which is what happened in Politics Amino.

[Kaboomlandia]

In favour of the repeal, but not giving them another badge for it. If we do that then liberations will have become just as toothless as condemnations.

[Lord Dominator]

Bumping, may submit soon.

[Praeceps]

Nitpickily in the operative clause, repeals shouldn't be capitalized I believe. Looks good otherwise.

[Lord Dominator]

Nitpickily in the operative clause, repeals shouldn't be capitalized I believe. Looks good otherwise.

I don't think it matters either way (I've done it before apparently), but I'll change it. Thanks for the quick look.

[Mallorea and Riva]

What is the upside of passing this?

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Aware that this was not have been the case when SC#73 Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders was originally passed;

Might want to rephrase this clause LD, otherwise it reads fine.

[Lord Dominator]

What is the upside of passing this?

Principally, because I agree with the reasoning presented and think it should be repealed for such.

Aware that this was not have been the case when SC#73 Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders was originally passed;

Might want to rephrase this clause LD, otherwise it reads fine.

Good catch, thank you.

[Mallorea and Riva]

What is the upside of passing this?

Principally, because I agree with the reasoning presented and think it should be repealed for such.

I'm struggling with your underlying premise.

Holding both that acts of forum destruction are a terrible crime and that Allied States of EuroIslanders was in fact involved with acts of such;

I'm with you so far.

Observing that acts of forum destruction are viewed as heinous crimes worthy of permanent shunning;

Broadly speaking true, though as others have noted there has been some history of a degree of forgiveness in some instances.

Aware that this was not the case when SC#73 Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders was originally passed;

This is where you lose me. You're saying that forum destruction wasn't viewed as a messed up act in 2011?

[Lord Dominator]

Observing that acts of forum destruction are viewed as heinous crimes worthy of permanent shunning;

Broadly speaking true, though as others have noted there has been some history of a degree of forgiveness in some instances.

Unknown above is indicated to have never exactly been fully forgiven, but otherwise yes.

Aware that this was not the case when SC#73 Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders was originally passed;

This is where you lose me. You're saying that forum destruction wasn't viewed as a messed up act in 2011?

I'm attempting to state that the blacklisting for forum destruction didn't seem to be in play (rather, partial shunning, usually from one side), rather than that no one viewed it as messed up. Or at least so goes my understanding. Wording assistance to specify such is appreciated, if it is unclear as you say.

Edit: edit attempt to clarify that the clause is regarding what we do to forum destroyers.

[Lord Dominator]

Given that queue has suddenly opened up, I'll likely be submitting this in the next couple of days.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Broadly speaking true, though as others have noted there has been some history of a degree of forgiveness in some instances.

Unknown above is indicated to have never exactly been fully forgiven, but otherwise yes.

Indeed, and part of that was due to Unknown's apologies, the destruction Unknown itself suffered at the hands of the perpetrator of the act, etc. None of those mitigating factors are present here, as has been pointed out in prior attempts to repeal the condemnation.

I'm attempting to state that the blacklisting for forum destruction didn't seem to be in play (rather, partial shunning, usually from one side), rather than that no one viewed it as messed up. Or at least so goes my understanding. Wording assistance to specify such is appreciated, if it is unclear as you say.

Edit: edit attempt to clarify that the clause is regarding what we do to forum destroyers.

Isn't that refuted by the fact that the condemnation was passed in the first place?