SC Questions & Answers

[Mauka]

Right but logistically that doesn't make sense in the context of the SC. Like imagine a nation joining dropping a proposal and then leaving in the UN, or NATO. I think if anything the choice makes the SC more dynamic causing players to have to choose at least on a temporary basis. Does the SC in character note that WA membership is used in this way? If so cool! Then it seems completely reasonable, to allow this.

[Praeceps]

Right but logistically that doesn't make sense in the context of the SC. Like imagine a nation joining dropping a proposal and then leaving in the UN, or NATO. I think if anything the choice makes the SC more dynamic causing players to have to choose at least on a temporary basis. Does the SC in character note that WA membership is used in this way? If so cool! Then it seems completely reasonable, to allow this.

Nah, not really. There's also not much of a SC IC and OOC divide like in the GA.

[Mauka]

Right but logistically that doesn't make sense in the context of the SC. Like imagine a nation joining dropping a proposal and then leaving in the UN, or NATO. I think if anything the choice makes the SC more dynamic causing players to have to choose at least on a temporary basis. Does the SC in character note that WA membership is used in this way? If so cool! Then it seems completely reasonable, to allow this.

Nah, not really. There's also not much of a SC IC and OOC divide like in the GA.

Ah Well it stills seems like an odd at least in regards to the narrative we tell ourselves with in the SC but acceptable I suppose.

[Quintessence of Dust]

Why can't there be a way to opt out? I do not want have to CTE this nation yet again, but it seems to be literally the only way of avoiding this thing.

[Honeydewistania]

Why can't there be a way to opt out? I do not want have to CTE this nation yet again, but it seems to be literally the only way of avoiding this thing.

Opt out of what?

[Praeceps]

Why can't there be a way to opt out? I do not want have to CTE this nation yet again, but it seems to be literally the only way of avoiding this thing.

If you're referring to someone commending you or condemning you but you do not want the commendation or condemnation, it is usually seen as poor form to write one. I would suggest asking the individual interested to not write the resolution if that is the case.

[Quintessence of Dust]

Why can't there be a way to opt out? I do not want have to CTE this nation yet again, but it seems to be literally the only way of avoiding this thing.

If you're referring to someone commending you or condemning you but you do not want the commendation or condemnation, it is usually seen as poor form to write one. I would suggest asking the individual interested to not write the resolution if that is the case.

I have. Many times. This latest one is at least the fifth time I have had to do so. But why should I have to go out of my way to express my non-interest? Every other part of the game is opt-in: roleplays, R/D, issues, forum posting, everything. Except the SC. Why can't there be a "do not commend" list? I can block someone from TGing me or block their forum account, but I have no actual power beyond hoping they agree to be amenable to stop them writing something that can affix a coded message to my own nation?

[Comfed]

If you're referring to someone commending you or condemning you but you do not want the commendation or condemnation, it is usually seen as poor form to write one. I would suggest asking the individual interested to not write the resolution if that is the case.

I have. Many times. This latest one is at least the fifth time I have had to do so. But why should I have to go out of my way to express my non-interest? Every other part of the game is opt-in: roleplays, R/D, issues, forum posting, everything. Except the SC. Why can't there be a "do not commend" list? I can block someone from TGing me or block their forum account, but I have no actual power beyond hoping they agree to be amenable to stop them writing something that can affix a coded message to my own nation?

R/D isn't opt-out. Nor is the SC. most parts of NSGP aren't opt-out.

[Honeydewistania]

If you're referring to someone commending you or condemning you but you do not want the commendation or condemnation, it is usually seen as poor form to write one. I would suggest asking the individual interested to not write the resolution if that is the case.

I have. Many times. This latest one is at least the fifth time I have had to do so. But why should I have to go out of my way to express my non-interest? Every other part of the game is opt-in: roleplays, R/D, issues, forum posting, everything. Except the SC. Why can't there be a "do not commend" list? I can block someone from TGing me or block their forum account, but I have no actual power beyond hoping they agree to be amenable to stop them writing something that can affix a coded message to my own nation?

Since you've made it clear in the past and now that you do not wish to be commended, such resolutions will not pass as large delegates will vote against it (especially since most of these efforts aren't drafted on the forum).

[All Hail Dilber]

I was wondering if it is possible to commend Dilber? And if so how do I do it? I'm not totally sure but I do think there is a voting part so do you guys think that would pass that vote if it is good?

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

How to write a Commendation:

• Check that the nominee wants to be Commended
• Read and understand the rules of the SC
• Look through passed Commendations to get an idea for the format and style
• Research the nominee - what have they done that is Commendable. Get details, don’t just make a laundry list of their accomplishments, show how what they did made a difference
• Write a draft here in these forums
• Don’t rush it, listen to feedback and critiques and amend your draft appropriately

Note: there is no guarantee that even if you write a good proposal it will pass.

To other SC forum members - this nation showed up in TWP the other week, I have no idea who it is and whether or not they’re serious.

[All Hail Dilber]

Okay, thank you. That is a lot, but I think worth the time.

[Radicalania]

Question: if parts of a resolution are not true (nor have been for at least 6 months), can it pass the SC? And if a resolution hits Quorum and already went to vote, what would be the procedure? (a comrade pointed out that at least 4 things on the current SCR are not true)

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Question: if parts of a resolution are not true (nor have been for at least 6 months), can it pass the SC? And if a resolution hits Quorum and already went to vote, what would be the procedure? (a comrade pointed out that at least 4 things on the current SCR are not true)

As the Moderators say in the SC Rules thread they are not arbiters of truth. So a proposal can contain factual inaccuracies and still be legal. It’s up to the voters to decide whether or not the author is being somewhat elastic with the truth.

A passed proposal that contains inaccuracies is inherently legal (because Mods initially ruled it so and it passed). However, the untruths it contains may be grounds for a repeal - it’s up to the repealing author to present a strong enough case for a repeal.

[Radicalania]

Cheers BBD,

Can SC Resolutions reference GA Resolutions as reasons for condemnation? I feel like doing so would strengthen my repeal attempt

Further can a SCR link to RMB posts

[Praeceps]

Cheers BBD,

Can SC Resolutions reference GA Resolutions as reasons for condemnation? I feel like doing so would strengthen my repeal attempt

Further can a SCR link to RMB posts

Yes and no respectively.

[Radicalania]

Thank you!

[Sorianora]

Is it just me or does SC#2 look illegal?

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=2

And if it is, can you repeal it for being illegal?

[Praeceps]

Is it just me or does SC#2 look illegal?

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=2

And if it is, can you repeal it for being illegal?

It is illegal under the current ruleset, yes ("his" and lack of active clause as two that jump out to me immediately). I would imagine that the rules were different when that resolution was first submitted.

I'm not a SC mod, however, I think that it would be legal and mention it be illegal now under the current ruleset contingent upon Rule 3b. That being said, I don't think it would be a good idea to repeal it solely based on that. Of course, an actual SC mod might come around and correct me on any of this.

[Free Las Pinas]

Is it just me or does SC#2 look illegal?

https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=2

And if it is, can you repeal it for being illegal?

Referencing the rules in an SC proposal, I believe, would violate R2a R3b. And even if I were wrong, it seems like an unfair reason for repeal considering rules were different then.

hehe ninja’d

[Sedgistan]

There's two key rules to bear in mind:

1b - your repeal text would need to address the contents of the resolution you're repealing.

3b - it may be possible to cite illegalities, but you must always request a ruling before submitting.

It'd definitely be possible to write a repeal that, amongst its arguments, mentioned that the original resolution violates current Secretariat standards.

[Haremm]

Just a question, what do Commendations and Condemnations actually do?

[Daarwyrth]

Just a question, what do Commendations and Condemnations actually do?

They pin a pretty badge onto a nation or region.

[Eumaeus]

Just a question, what do Commendations and Condemnations actually do?

To expand upon Daarwyrth's entirely accurate explanation, Commendations and Condemnations are international legislation that "recognize outstanding contribution by a nation or region" and "express shock and dismay at a nation or region" respectively. While there is quite a bit of politics involved in determining who does and does not deserve commendation or condemnation, both types of resolution are commonly treated as recognition of a nation/region's accomplishments.

The effects of C/Cs are symbolic however, as the only in-game effect that they have is to add a badge to the nation/region page of the target nation marking them as Commended/Condemned and linking to the resolution. Not only is that just how the game mechanic is programed, but it is actually against the Security Council's rules for a proposal to do anything else, as Rule 1E states "A Proposal cannot attempt to do more than what it is able to do; Commendations/Condemnation can only Commend/Condemn the nominee... For example, your proposal cannot impose fines, sanctions or a boycott on a Condemned nation".

[Haremm]

Oh, thank you for the answers