NATION

PASSWORD

Split from Repeal "Condemn NAZI EUROPE"

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.
User avatar
Mahaj WA Seat
Minister
 
Posts: 2091
Founded: Nov 03, 2010
Ex-Nation

Split from Repeal "Condemn NAZI EUROPE"

Postby Mahaj WA Seat » Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:31 pm

Is it possible where we have the GA pass a resolution that says regions can't be discriminated against based on idealogical factors and then say SC Resolution 3 violates this and should be repealed.

Would that work?
Member of The South and Osiris
Representing Mahaj in the World Assembly.
The Mahaj Factbook.


Author of Missing Minors Act (Repealed) and In Regards to Cloning
Mike the Progressive wrote:
Brogavia wrote:Fuck bitches, get money.
You shall be my god.

Georgism wrote:Fuck off you cunt, I'm always nice.

NERVUN wrote:Yog zap!

Cool Egg Sandwich wrote:I am the Urinater..... I'll be back.

Jedi Utopians wrote:5) Now, saying that a nation couldn't be part of OPEC would be bold. AIPEC sounds like something you'd want to get checked out by a physician for.


User avatar
Flemingovia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 474
Founded: Dec 22, 2003
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Flemingovia » Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:37 pm

[not a joke]I thought the beloved Rule 4 already did that?

Note, however, that basing your proposal solely on a Real World ideology without reference to NationStates has been illegal since the introduction of Rule 4.


[/not a joke]
IMPORTANT: Before reading this post please read the terms and conditions below. By accessing this post you signify your acceptance, full and in part, of those terms and conditions:

http://img808.imageshack.us/i/disclaimer.jpg/

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8399
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:40 pm

Mahaj WA Seat wrote:Is it possible where we have the GA pass a resolution that says regions can't be discriminated against based on idealogical factors and then say SC Resolution 3 violates this and should be repealed.

Would that work?

Once passed, WA law is presumed to be legal. Even if they are found to be otherwise after reaching a vote (or after passage), the mods/admins cannot and will not do anything about it.

Further, the GA and SC work as separate bodies. The rules of one do not apply to the other. (However, for the record, there is a rule about Ideological Bans in the GA; no rule is currently in place in the SC.)
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Flemingovia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 474
Founded: Dec 22, 2003
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Flemingovia » Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:45 pm

thank you for that clarification. I did not realise that such a distinction existed. Does Rule 4 not apply in toto to the SC then?
IMPORTANT: Before reading this post please read the terms and conditions below. By accessing this post you signify your acceptance, full and in part, of those terms and conditions:

http://img808.imageshack.us/i/disclaimer.jpg/

User avatar
Mahaj WA Seat
Minister
 
Posts: 2091
Founded: Nov 03, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mahaj WA Seat » Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:54 pm

Mousebumples wrote:
Mahaj WA Seat wrote:Is it possible where we have the GA pass a resolution that says regions can't be discriminated against based on idealogical factors and then say SC Resolution 3 violates this and should be repealed.

Would that work?

Once passed, WA law is presumed to be legal. Even if they are found to be otherwise after reaching a vote (or after passage), the mods/admins cannot and will not do anything about it.

Further, the GA and SC work as separate bodies. The rules of one do not apply to the other. (However, for the record, there is a rule about Ideological Bans in the GA; no rule is currently in place in the SC.)

What I meant was taking the resolution on Idealogical Bans and applying it as stated, and in the Proposal to Repeal Condemn Nazi Europe mention as a side point that it violates the Idealogical Bans resolution.

I thought that the rules of the GA and SC DO apply to each other as they are both part of the WA
Member of The South and Osiris
Representing Mahaj in the World Assembly.
The Mahaj Factbook.


Author of Missing Minors Act (Repealed) and In Regards to Cloning
Mike the Progressive wrote:
Brogavia wrote:Fuck bitches, get money.
You shall be my god.

Georgism wrote:Fuck off you cunt, I'm always nice.

NERVUN wrote:Yog zap!

Cool Egg Sandwich wrote:I am the Urinater..... I'll be back.

Jedi Utopians wrote:5) Now, saying that a nation couldn't be part of OPEC would be bold. AIPEC sounds like something you'd want to get checked out by a physician for.


User avatar
Mahaj WA Seat
Minister
 
Posts: 2091
Founded: Nov 03, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mahaj WA Seat » Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:54 pm

Flemingovia wrote:thank you for that clarification. I did not realise that such a distinction existed. Does Rule 4 not apply in toto to the SC then?

Rule 4 DOES apply to the SC. Or am I misreading what you are saying?
Member of The South and Osiris
Representing Mahaj in the World Assembly.
The Mahaj Factbook.


Author of Missing Minors Act (Repealed) and In Regards to Cloning
Mike the Progressive wrote:
Brogavia wrote:Fuck bitches, get money.
You shall be my god.

Georgism wrote:Fuck off you cunt, I'm always nice.

NERVUN wrote:Yog zap!

Cool Egg Sandwich wrote:I am the Urinater..... I'll be back.

Jedi Utopians wrote:5) Now, saying that a nation couldn't be part of OPEC would be bold. AIPEC sounds like something you'd want to get checked out by a physician for.


User avatar
Flemingovia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 474
Founded: Dec 22, 2003
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Flemingovia » Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:58 pm

No - i think I was misreading what Mousebumples was saying.

You said:
here is a rule about Ideological Bans in the GA; no rule is currently in place in the SC.


and yet rule 4 gives a ruling about ideological bans. From that I assumed that Rule 4 did not apply to the SC.
Last edited by Flemingovia on Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
IMPORTANT: Before reading this post please read the terms and conditions below. By accessing this post you signify your acceptance, full and in part, of those terms and conditions:

http://img808.imageshack.us/i/disclaimer.jpg/

User avatar
Grandais
Minister
 
Posts: 2070
Founded: Jan 06, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Grandais » Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:00 pm

Flemingovia wrote:and yet rule 4 gives a ruling about ideological bans.

Where?
DEFCON 5 [4] 3 2 1
Grandais News|Factbook|Embassies

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 9237
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:05 pm

Flemingovia wrote:Why not bring the SC resolution and we will find out?

...once the NS world has stopped laughing long enough to vote. it would be good for the lutz.



Why is it funny? By the logic employed here the North Pacific is supporting Islamofascism. [arguments about how this brings bad press to the site, and how this condones fascism] [/arguments].
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Major and Field Marshal of The Black Hawks
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: "I don't think chatting with someone over the Internet about casual topics falls under faithful or unfaithful. :<"

User avatar
A mean old man
Senator
 
Posts: 4306
Founded: Jun 27, 2008
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby A mean old man » Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:05 pm

There are no rules against condemning ideologies in the SC. There have been attempts to install such rules, however no attempts have been successful as of yet.
A: SC#16 - Repeal "Liberate The Security Council"
A: SC#26 - Commend The Joint Systems Alliance
A: SC#30 - Commend 10000 Islands
A: SC#37 - Condemn NAZI EUROPE
A: SC#38 - Repeal "Condemn NAZI EUROPE"
A: GA#149 - On Expiration Dates
C: SC#58 - Repeal "Commend Sedgistan"
A: SC#62 - Repeal "Condemn Swarmlandia"
C: SC#63 - Commend Ballotonia
A: SC#65 - Condemn Punk Reloaded
C: GA#163 - Repeal "Law of the Sea"
A: SC#72 - Repeal "Commend Mikeswill"
C: SC#74 - Condemn Lone Wolves United
C: SC#76 - Repeal "Condemn Thatcherton"
A: SC#81 - Repeal "Condemn Anthony Delasanta"
C: SC#83 - Condemn Automagfreek
C: SC#84 - Repeal "Liberate Islam"
C: SC#111 - Commend Krulltopia

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 9237
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:09 pm

A mean old man wrote:There are no rules against condemning ideologies in the SC. There have been attempts to install such rules, however no attempts have been successful as of yet.


In a way this resolution blocks any such attempts. It contradicts any such law.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Major and Field Marshal of The Black Hawks
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: "I don't think chatting with someone over the Internet about casual topics falls under faithful or unfaithful. :<"

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8399
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:12 pm

Flemingovia wrote:No - i think I was misreading what Mousebumples was saying.
You said:
here is a rule about Ideological Bans in the GA; no rule is currently in place in the SC.

and yet rule 4 gives a ruling about ideological bans. From that I assumed that Rule 4 did not apply to the SC.

The GA Rule in question that I was referencing was this one:
Rules for GA Proposals wrote:Game Mechanics
Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the WA works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, creating a universal WA currency, and forming a "secondary WA" are all examples of this. Another example of this is forbidding WA action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.
Ideological Bans
Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheist, or any other political, religious, or economic ideology. While it should go without saying, this is up to the Game Moderator's discretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.

I admit to not being super-familiar with SC rules - other than a general familiarity. However, as I understand it, R4 is not an ideological ban.

As others have said, the resolution "Condemn NAZI EUROPE" would be illegal if authored as a new proposal TODAY as it refers directly to the players within this region - not to the actions of the nations/leaders/etc. of the region. It's not about the actions of the region but really just about the name of the region.

Does that make sense? I can give it another go, if that doesn't help to explain things. Or, you know, members of our Modly Awesomeness can say it with more clarity.
Last edited by Mousebumples on Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:15 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Mahaj WA Seat
Minister
 
Posts: 2091
Founded: Nov 03, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mahaj WA Seat » Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:49 pm

Mousebumples wrote:
Flemingovia wrote:No - i think I was misreading what Mousebumples was saying.
You said:

and yet rule 4 gives a ruling about ideological bans. From that I assumed that Rule 4 did not apply to the SC.

The GA Rule in question that I was referencing was this one:
Rules for GA Proposals wrote:Game Mechanics
Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the WA works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, creating a universal WA currency, and forming a "secondary WA" are all examples of this. Another example of this is forbidding WA action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.
Ideological Bans
Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheist, or any other political, religious, or economic ideology. While it should go without saying, this is up to the Game Moderator's discretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.

I admit to not being super-familiar with SC rules - other than a general familiarity. However, as I understand it, R4 is not an ideological ban.

As others have said, the resolution "Condemn NAZI EUROPE" would be illegal if authored as a new proposal TODAY as it refers directly to the players within this region - not to the actions of the nations/leaders/etc. of the region. It's not about the actions of the region but really just about the name of the region.

Does that make sense? I can give it another go, if that doesn't help to explain things. Or, you know, members of our Modly Awesomeness can say it with more clarity.


But is it possible to do the following:

Create a GA resolution which says something along the lines of
No region or nation shall be disciplined for their ideology


and then submit a Repeal Condemn Nazi Europe and say that Condemn Nazi Europe violates the above GA resolution and should be repealed.

does that work? Is my explanation clear?
Member of The South and Osiris
Representing Mahaj in the World Assembly.
The Mahaj Factbook.


Author of Missing Minors Act (Repealed) and In Regards to Cloning
Mike the Progressive wrote:
Brogavia wrote:Fuck bitches, get money.
You shall be my god.

Georgism wrote:Fuck off you cunt, I'm always nice.

NERVUN wrote:Yog zap!

Cool Egg Sandwich wrote:I am the Urinater..... I'll be back.

Jedi Utopians wrote:5) Now, saying that a nation couldn't be part of OPEC would be bold. AIPEC sounds like something you'd want to get checked out by a physician for.


User avatar
Warzone Codger
Diplomat
 
Posts: 832
Founded: Oct 30, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Warzone Codger » Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:52 pm

Mahaj WA Seat wrote:
But is it possible to do the following:

Create a GA resolution which says something along the lines of
No region or nation shall be disciplined for their ideology


and then submit a Repeal Condemn Nazi Europe and say that Condemn Nazi Europe violates the above GA resolution and should be repealed.

does that work? Is my explanation clear?


If GA resolutions applied to the Security Council, most the SC's resolutions would be illegal right now. From WA 2

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.


Since basically every SC commend/condemn/liberation relates back to some military conflict (raiders vs defenders), all of them would be illegal if we follow what you're saying.
Warwick Z Codger the Warzone Codger. Space Commandant of Warzone Airspace.
GA #121: Medical Facilities Protection | SC #183: Commend Haiku | Commended by SC #87: Commend Warzone Codger

User avatar
Flemingovia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 474
Founded: Dec 22, 2003
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Flemingovia » Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:19 am

Mousebumples wrote:
Ideological Bans
Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheist, or any other political, religious, or economic ideology. While it should go without saying, this is up to the Game Moderator's discretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.


The above does not apply in the case of this condemnation. It condemns Nazi Europe, it does not ban national socialism.
IMPORTANT: Before reading this post please read the terms and conditions below. By accessing this post you signify your acceptance, full and in part, of those terms and conditions:

http://img808.imageshack.us/i/disclaimer.jpg/

User avatar
Flemingovia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 474
Founded: Dec 22, 2003
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Flemingovia » Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:29 am

Mallorea and Riva wrote:
Flemingovia wrote:Why not bring the SC resolution and we will find out?

...once the NS world has stopped laughing long enough to vote. it would be good for the lutz.



Why is it funny? By the logic employed here the North Pacific is supporting Islamofascism. [arguments about how this brings bad press to the site, and how this condones fascism] [/arguments].


I make it a point of honour never to explain humour. Once you do so the funniest joke in the universe* can be killed. You either find the above scenario funny or you do not.

I do, and I think others would too. Maybe not you. I am coming to understand that the NS forums are not the place for someone with a sense of humour. Some people here seem to need a proctologist to clean their teeth. (not you, of course)




* this is "hedgehogs - I don't get it. Why can't they share the hedge?"
Last edited by Flemingovia on Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
IMPORTANT: Before reading this post please read the terms and conditions below. By accessing this post you signify your acceptance, full and in part, of those terms and conditions:

http://img808.imageshack.us/i/disclaimer.jpg/

User avatar
Sedgistan
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 27332
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Sedgistan » Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:36 am

A mean old man wrote:There are no rules against condemning ideologies in the SC. There have been attempts to install such rules, however no attempts have been successful as of yet.

Not entirely the case:
Ardchoille wrote:Note, however, that basing your proposal solely on a Real World ideology without reference to NationStates has been illegal since the introduction of Rule 4.


I'll answer the rest of the points later today if still necessary.

User avatar
Meekinos
Diplomat
 
Posts: 776
Founded: Sep 10, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Meekinos » Wed Nov 17, 2010 6:32 am

A mean old man wrote:There are no rules against condemning ideologies in the SC. There have been attempts to install such rules, however no attempts have been successful as of yet.

There's no rule but there is precedent. And that precedent currently says that we can condemn ideologies. Our goal is to reverse that precedent so we can't condemn ideologies. The rules have no bearing here. Even if they did, every resolution passed before the induction of the SC ruleset is not retroactive. It applies to everything that was written from the introduction onward. The repeal had to respect that in order to be legal and pass all the basic legality challengers, if there was one. That's the trickiest part of all, it has to make its case using the current set of rules to repeal something that was written in a different era.
Ambassador Gavriil Floros
Meekinos' Official WA Ambassador
Deputy Treasurer, North Pleides Merchant's Syndicate
CEO & Financial Manager of Delta Energy Ltd.
Madame Elina Nikodemos
Executive Senior Delegate
Educator
The Hellenic Republic of Meekinos
Factbook: Your Friendly Guide to Meekinos
The paranoid, isolationist, xenophobic capitalists.

User avatar
Sedgistan
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 27332
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Sedgistan » Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:26 am

Mahaj WA Seat wrote:Is it possible where we have the GA pass a resolution that says regions can't be discriminated against based on idealogical factors and then say SC Resolution 3 violates this and should be repealed.

Would that work?

No. As Mousebumples says, any resolution which is passed by the World Assembly is deemed legal by the fact it has passed. Therefore it's impossible to repeal a resolution on the grounds that it's illegal.

Regarding passing a GA resolution which says that nations/regions can't be discriminated against based on ideology, I think that would fall foul of the GA resolution laws.

Mahaj WA Seat wrote:What I meant was taking the resolution on Idealogical Bans and applying it as stated, and in the Proposal to Repeal Condemn Nazi Europe mention as a side point that it violates the Idealogical Bans resolution.

Condemn Nazi Europe is not an ideological ban - it shows disapproval of the Nazi ideology, but does not ban it.

Mahaj WA Seat wrote:I thought that the rules of the GA and SC DO apply to each other as they are both part of the WA

No, or every SC proposal would fall foul of the GA's rule against metagaming.

Flemingovia wrote:Does Rule 4 not apply in toto to the SC then?

Rule 4 applies to all SC proposals submitted from the time the rule was introduced. Previous resolutions were grandfathered in.

EDIT: I've split out all the post which discussed Mahaj's legality query. I apologise for splitting your post too, Meekinos, but as it was a direct response to one of the split posts, I felt it was more appropriate in this thread.
Last edited by Sedgistan on Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mahaj WA Seat
Minister
 
Posts: 2091
Founded: Nov 03, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mahaj WA Seat » Wed Nov 17, 2010 5:26 pm

Okay, then I guess my Idea won't work. :(

It was just another attempt at finagling a way to get this Repealed, since who knows whether this will pass or not.
Member of The South and Osiris
Representing Mahaj in the World Assembly.
The Mahaj Factbook.


Author of Missing Minors Act (Repealed) and In Regards to Cloning
Mike the Progressive wrote:
Brogavia wrote:Fuck bitches, get money.
You shall be my god.

Georgism wrote:Fuck off you cunt, I'm always nice.

NERVUN wrote:Yog zap!

Cool Egg Sandwich wrote:I am the Urinater..... I'll be back.

Jedi Utopians wrote:5) Now, saying that a nation couldn't be part of OPEC would be bold. AIPEC sounds like something you'd want to get checked out by a physician for.


User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8399
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:37 pm

Sedgistan wrote:
Mahaj WA Seat wrote:Is it possible where we have the GA pass a resolution that says regions can't be discriminated against based on idealogical factors and then say SC Resolution 3 violates this and should be repealed.

Would that work?

No. As Mousebumples says, any resolution which is passed by the World Assembly is deemed legal by the fact it has passed. Therefore it's impossible to repeal a resolution on the grounds that it's illegal.

Although, technically, I believe you could author a repeal text on different grounds (i.e. as been done here), but then use the argument that it would currently be illegal if proposed as a new draft TODAY as an argument for why it should be repealed in the At Vote thread, lobbying telegrams, etc.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize the split happened until just now. But, the "as has been done here" reference is to the Repeal "Condemn NAZI EUROPE" proposal, of course. I just wanted to edit that in for clarity since the proposal in question is not in this thread anymore.
Last edited by Mousebumples on Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Security Council

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Samudera

Advertisement

Remove ads