[DRAFT] Repeal "Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders"

[The Archregimancy]

Can we please return to a focus on Tinhampton's campaign against the specific proposal rather than Tinhampton's broader behaviour.

Thank you.

[Tinhampton]

So your argument in your counter-campaign TG was that I haven't been involved in "international politics" until a few months ago, and therefore anything I say should be immediately disregarded, right? And now you're trying to justify the counter-campaign by saying that my campaign TG was arguably unnecessary (it wasn't- approvals were stagnating, and 17 to go in roughly a day warranted a second campaign in my opinion).

1. No. I was trying to call attention to the logic used in the proposal ;p
2. Your telegram would liekly have been necessary in different, potentially more timely circumstances - although you're the one controlling what time you send your telegrams out

[WayNeacTia]

y more timely circumstances - although you're the one controlling what time you send your telegrams out

None of which was even so much as a remote concern to you. You had no stake in this, and decided to interfere simply because you could.

[The Unified Missourtama States]

There is no good ICly reason to repeal this, "They were to bad to be condemned" does not make sense, this needs a complete redraft.

I think the best IC explanation for this repeal is probably that it was out of SC jurisdiction to really restrict in a preventive way, if you can somehow do that without making it sound like the original proposal is completely illegal.

[Lord Dominator]

There is no good ICly reason to repeal this,

Well yes, forum destruction being strictly a OOC thing is why I'm attempting a repeal, and that's naturally hard to phrase IC.

"They were to bad to be condemned" does not make sense,

Your partial mangling of my argument aside, that seems to be strictly a you thing.

this needs a complete redraft.

My knowledge of the vote that was to be suggests it's perfectly fine as-is.

[Free Las Pinas]

There is no good ICly reason to repeal this, "They were to bad to be condemned" does not make sense

Not really? Isn't that why we don't condemn certain nations/regions? I do agree, however, that there isn't much of a good way to frame this with IC context.

this needs a complete redraft

Well, most arguments in favor seem to have either too much opposition or too little information to back it up.

[Goobergunchia]

There is no good ICly reason to repeal this, "They were to bad to be condemned" does not make sense

Not really? Isn't that why we don't condemn certain nations/regions? I do agree, however, that there isn't much of a good way to frame this with IC context.

Destruction of the seat of regional government is how I think of it. Think, say, nuking your favorite country's capital. It's not a precise analogy but it's close enough to roll with.

This has been an OOC post.

[Whamabama]

Not really? Isn't that why we don't condemn certain nations/regions? I do agree, however, that there isn't much of a good way to frame this with IC context.

Destruction of the seat of regional government is how I think of it. Think, say, nuking your favorite country's capital. It's not a precise analogy but it's close enough to roll with.

This has been an OOC post.

Exactly how it was written. There is plently of historical examples of the word "Forum" being used to describe the place of government.

[Lord Dominator]

As I've recently realized I do not presently have any positions anywhere that ultimately reflect on a region per-se (just on myself), I intend to submit this again soon.

[Tinhampton]

While I continue to disagree with the arguments of this repeal, I will be approving and voting in favour* of it as penance for the events of October 2020*.

*: I'm extremely confident at this stage that LD won't require a second campaign to get this to vote. Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if I'd have done nothing about Cretox's telegram... the repeal was unanimously supported in TNP and gaining traction in TSP, and I very much suspect it would have gotten 80% worldwide support or more.

[Blind Squirrel]

So your argument in your counter-campaign TG was that I haven't been involved in "international politics" until a few months ago, and therefore anything I say should be immediately disregarded, right?

If this is Tinhampton’s motive, I suspect it may be an attempt to divert attention away from the colossal ass whooping that pretty much all of her proposals have been taking the last little while. If so, this was a serious miscalculation on her part, that is likely to have long term consequences on any further attempts at legislation on Tin’s part.

I for one intend to counter-campaign ANY proposal put forth by Tinhampton, on the grounds she is far to new to be passing legislation.

*emphasis added

Such "long term (sic) consequences" for Tin have included authoring (or co-authoring) 16 additional resolutions since this claim about her future was made. Also, Tin now holds the exclusive right to say she has written the most popular resolution of all time. Suffice to say, I don't think I will be asking you for lottery numbers anytime soon.

---

In regards to the proposal, I do not see any reason to be opposed to it.

[Apatosaurus]

So your argument in your counter-campaign TG was that I haven't been involved in "international politics" until a few months ago, and therefore anything I say should be immediately disregarded, right?

If this is Tinhampton’s motive, I suspect it may be an attempt to divert attention away from the colossal ass whooping that pretty much all of her proposals have been taking the last little while. If so, this was a serious miscalculation on her part, that is likely to have long term consequences on any further attempts at legislation on Tin’s part.

I for one intend to counter-campaign ANY proposal put forth by Tinhampton, on the grounds she is far to new to be passing legislation.

Anyway, full support to a repeal of SC#73.

[Not A Plant]

I kept reading it as the Allied States of Euro Slanders, and thought that is really uh "unique" name.

Anyways this seems super reasonable, and for what little bit my support counts for, you have it fully LD.

[Eluvatar]

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.

You're going to need an admin opinion to look at the Liberate code. I'm not seeing any game-side distinction between a founder-imposed password and a delegate-imposed password. If [violet] was clever enough to draw a distinction, she or Ballo or Salusa would have to explain it.

The term 'Delegate-imposed' means it's not about who actually sets the password (the term 'Delegate-set' would've been used in that case) but under who's authority the password is imposed on those trying to enter the region. If the founder nation is alive (regardless which region it is in or whether the delegate has access to regional controls), any password present is deemed set with the (indirect) authority of the Founder nation and thus be Founder-imposed. Only if there is no living Founder will any password be deemed Delegate-imposed.

So, imagine Founder sets a password and then Ceases to Exist. There no longer being a Founder means any present Delegate automatically obtains access to regional controls, and from then onward the password is deemed to be Delegate-imposed.

Ballotonia

[Tinhampton]

This proposal was submitted, reached quorum, and was withdrawn. It would have gone to vote at 5am GMT on Friday.