[DEFEATED] (Not by me) Liberate The East Pacific

[Valentine Z]

GG no re. Please.

*Furiously types a Repeal. Furiously.*

[Ikania]

Praise Talos.

[ArenaC]

LibTEP is once and for all, history. We* won, lads and lassies. Good work.

* The against won. The for did not.

[Yokiria]

Thank goodness, I can toss my repeal draft in the trash now.

[WayNeacTia]

Thank goodness, I can toss my repeal draft in the trash now.

Nah... Leave it up so the unsuspecting can still comment on it two weeks from now.

[United Massachusetts]

Does the last clause satisfy Rule III?

“ The Security Council, by the advice and consent of the Delegates and member nations thereof, does hereby, in the name of the ever-knowing Violet, Liberate The East Pacific.”

There’s that strange Violet reference, sure, but there’s also another problem with the operative clause. The operative clause predicates action upon the advice and consent of the Delegates and member nations, but it’s entirely possible that a resolution, notwithstanding this clause, can pass *without* the support of Delegates or member nations at large. Not all delegates are created equally in terms of endorsements and member-nations don’t always vote in line with delegates.

Per moderator precedent, it is legal insofar as that is the exact wording of SC 247, the first liberation.

[Sedgistan]

Catching up on some stuff:

Does the last clause satisfy Rule III?

“ The Security Council, by the advice and consent of the Delegates and member nations thereof, does hereby, in the name of the ever-knowing Violet, Liberate The East Pacific.”

There’s that strange Violet reference, sure, but there’s also another problem with the operative clause. The operative clause predicates action upon the advice and consent of the Delegates and member nations, but it’s entirely possible that a resolution, notwithstanding this clause, can pass *without* the support of Delegates or member nations at large. Not all delegates are created equally in terms of endorsements and member-nations don’t always vote in line with delegates.

Per moderator precedent, it is legal insofar as that is the exact wording of SC 247, the first liberation.

Precedent doesn't necessarily make it legal (it could have been missed first time or the rules changed since) but yes, the clause was legal. The "advice and consents" and "in the name of" parts are just irrelevant fluff.

GenSec has no authority over SC proposals: Blame the mods, if you must blame somebody...

Can I blame GenSec twice?

(That seems like a really weird and specific rule.)

Security Council rules are deliberately minimalist. Yes, there is a rule on joke proposals, but not against "proposals that just happen to be funny", and Moderation errs towards interpreting proposals as "legal funny" rather than "illegal joke". It's up to World Assembly members to determine the majority of their standards for the SC, not the mod team.

[Lothric-]

LMAOOOOOO I missed it, a buncha people got all salty bc I called their livelihood a useless and broken organization. Maybe get a life outside of NS and don't be so offended.

[Jakker]

I think this thread has had its due. Locking it.