Illegal SC proposals - post them here

[Boston Castle]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1606709607

Rule 3, Rule 4(b) at least. Maybe Rule 2 too.

World Assembly,

Dictatorship in Thaecia. There should be no nation within Thaecia Region with any form of Dictatorship. As I stand here today, we will not give up until every nation in Thaecia which governs by any form of Dictatorship is expelled from this region.

1. Dictatorship in Thaecia shall be condemned.
2. Shall be subsequently banned.

[Comfed]

I think it was because people on the RMB weren’t nominating them for the Local Council elections.

Directed at Condemn Melicorium.

[Praeceps]

Underneath the new ruleset, R2b for the "he".

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1609626567

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Under the new ruleset R2(a) for the several mentions of roleplay.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1610050511

[Lord Dominator]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1610803400

Interpreting this repeal resolution as not just an apology, but an additional denunciation against all those who would seek to subscribe their regional communities to heinous ideologies

This clause from the linked proposal reads rather like some kind of perspective/new R1 violation due to the 'interpeting as not just an apology' (in that a proposal being an apology implies it to not be from the perspective of the WA) - I'm aware mods marked it legal, just wanted to check on this specific point anyways.

[Sedgistan]

I don't think it's a Rule 1a violation - while the text is likely meant by the author to be read as CCD apologising, it can also be read as the WA apologising (to CCD?), which would make it legal. We generally fall on the side of considering things legal if they can be read as legal (even if they could also be read in another way that would be illegal), with the exception of the new Rule 3.

That clause did give me some Rule 1e ("No further actions") concerns before I hit the legal button - as the second aspect could have been considered trying to do more than a Repeal can. However, it's not so much further actions that the proposal is doing, more that it's telling you how the text should be interpreted.

That's not really different to many regular proposals such as the current Liberation itself "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;" - which again goes a little beyond just Liberating CCD but only to tell you to read the Liberation as a warning to others who might try the same actions that got CCD liberated.

[Grishahakkaverchynot]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1611875208
Thaecia is not password-locked at all.

[Comfed]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=cerdenia_1611875208
Thaecia is not password-locked at all.

You’re allowed to liberate a non-passworded region. It’s usually symbolic.
The proposal itself is bad, but not illegal.

[Tinhampton]

SECURITY COUNCIL PROPOSAL
ID: illu-chi_1612667282


Condemn Chimes
A resolution to express shock and dismay at a nation or region.

Category: Condemnation

Nominee (nation): Chimes

Proposed by: Illu-chi

---

Recognizing that Chimes has decided to go against the will of the people of the world assembly by voting against the repealing of the death penalty and not for it.
Recognizing that Chimes is part of a cult which votes against what everyone in the world assembly supports.
Recognizing that all chimes endorsers are bots.
Recognizing any evidence to the contrary is completely false.
The world assembly hereby condemns Chimes.

The SC ruleset is clear that "Violation of the Site Rules in a proposal may result in more serious punishment" than violating normal SC rules, "which can include ejection from the World Assembly" (and the now retired Compendium underscored that "If a proposal is flaming or trolling, it will be deleted").

Is the third clause's assertation that "all [C]himes endorsers are bots" a violation of the sitewide rule against trolling like other "All X Are Y"-style posts would be?

[The Unified Missourtama States]

Is the third clause's assertation that "all [C]himes endorsers are bots" a violation of the sitewide rule against trolling like other "All X Are Y"-style posts would be?

I think in this context, "bots" is simply an r2a violation, regardless of whether it is some strange attempt at IC better handled through GHR.

[Sedgistan]

"all x are y" is just a format that some trolling posts fit into. It does not mean that any "all x are y" or even "all x are [something bad] y" posts are trolling.

No, that line is not trolling.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1613292473

R2(b) illegality - real world reference (the Trevor Project).

Appreciating that the message of unity of The Embassy was exemplified by the charity the Trevor Project, a charity which helped in suicide prevention for LGBTQ+ people under 25.

[Crazy girl]

And marked as such.

[Greater Cesnica]

I think it would be a good idea to pin this thread.

[Sedgistan]

Disagree - we tend to have 4 stickies (assuming there's an at-vote), which I feel is at the limit before people switch off and start ignoring them. This one isn't needed too often either.

I think it would be a good idea to pin this thread.

Why?

[Greater Cesnica]

Disagree - we tend to have 4 stickies (assuming there's an at-vote), which I feel is at the limit before people switch off and start ignoring them. This one isn't needed too often either.

I think it would be a good idea to pin this thread.

Why?

NCR's reasoning was:

I think it would be prudent to pin this thread.

Yes, a case in point was my post above. To make it I had to dig through the threads all the way back to October.

[Sedgistan]

Well that's the GA one, not this. And if you have to dig back a few months, it's because it's a thread that isn't used much. So why pin it? It's not a timeless source of information like the rules thread, or list of passed resolutions. Posts here are rarely relevant after a couple of days.

[Aredita]

I may be wrong, but I think this proposal is in violation of SC Guidelines. I'm thinking Rule 4 (C)? "You cannot refer to the game, or events or actions in it, as part of a game."

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1613857695

[Drew Durrnil]

I may be wrong, but I think this proposal is in violation of SC Guidelines. I'm thinking Rule 4 (C)? "You cannot refer to the game, or events or actions in it, as part of a game."

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1613857695

No, that's definitely in violation of rule 2(a) and 2(b), as it mentions the word "I" multiple times.

[Outer Sparta]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1614120231

Plagiarized from the now-repealed commendation of Northern Borland.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Likewise also plagiarised from the now repealed “Commend North Borland”

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1614182963

They also seem to think that because it’s been repealed it’s fair game to use.

[Outer Sparta]

Likewise also plagiarised from the now repealed “Commend North Borland”

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1614182963

They also seem to think that because it’s been repealed it’s fair game to use.

Should that person get an expulsion from the WA since they have not learned to not plagiarize resolutions?

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Likewise also plagiarised from the now repealed “Commend North Borland”

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1614182963

They also seem to think that because it’s been repealed it’s fair game to use.

Should that person get an expulsion from the WA since they have not learned to not plagiarize resolutions?

Different author to the one you reported OS.

Anyway, they’ve pulled it.

[Eumaeus]

Condemn Unification And Liberty
A resolution to express shock and dismay at a nation or region.

Category: Condemnation

Nominee: Unification and Liberty

Proposed by: Mother Russicania

Addressing the Security Council,

Understanding that Unification and Liberty has a multitude of puppet states to manipulate other nations

Appalled that the number of puppet states
Unification and Liberty operates is increasing

Alarmed by the rapid growth of it’s puppet states

Believing that these actions are concerning as it has yet to be addressed

Hereby condemns Unification and Liberty

I'm pretty sure the red clause is a Rule 1A violation. Link.

[Crazy girl]

Yup, even specifically mentioned under the spoiler in the rules.