[DRAFT] Repeal: Condemn the Pacific

[Myrth]

What happened last time this was repealed? Oh yeah, they gave us another reason to condemn.

Against. Never forget.

And we'll never forget all those failed attempts of yours to overthrow the legitimate government of the Pacific.

[Debussy]

Completely against this.

[Kingdom Of Englands]

I would support this, however reading the posts from others I will hold out for the moment

[United Socialist Territories]

They're still a dictatorship which isolates its citizens

[Quebecshire]

They're still a dictatorship which isolates its citizens

This is the weakest argument against, for a number of reasons.

1) A region's democratic element or lack thereof is not an inherent indicator of government behavior.
2) The NPO citizenry is not interested in democracy, or is openly hostile towards it, so forcing democracy is literally counter-majoritarian.
3) No amount of "isolation" can overpower the "Tired of life in The Pacific?" or "Move X nation to Y region" buttons.

[Fauxia]

Thanks for bumping the thread

Anyway, we never condemn regions just for being dictatorships and it goes against the spirit of a number of rules. Also, what Quebec said.

Anyway, I will fix this soon, including getting rid of that line, just busy IRL at the moment.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I don't think this proposal would be legal without the clause regarding Lazarus (which people are rightly insisting be removed, because it isn't true).

Per the Security Council rules, "if your proposal is a Repeal it must address the contents of the resolution it is repealing." A repeal can bring up new developments as a factor in a repeal, but any repeal proposal that doesn't address the contents of the actual resolution isn't legal, and without the Lazarus clause this repeal proposal doesn't address anything in the resolution and just tells us the NPO has changed. That you can't identify anything sufficiently wrong with the actual text of the resolution to warrant repeal of it and all of this is based on new developments is a reason to be against repeal. This simply isn't a proposal that stands up to scrutiny.

[Wrapper]

I don't think this proposal would be legal without the clause regarding Lazarus (which people are rightly insisting be removed, because it isn't true).

Per the Security Council rules, "if your proposal is a Repeal it must address the contents of the resolution it is repealing." A repeal can bring up new developments as a factor in a repeal, but any repeal proposal that doesn't address the contents of the actual resolution isn't legal, and without the Lazarus clause this repeal proposal doesn't address anything in the resolution and just tells us the NPO has changed. That you can't identify anything sufficiently wrong with the actual text of the resolution to warrant repeal of it and all of this is based on new developments is a reason to be against repeal. This simply isn't a proposal that stands up to scrutiny.

How does the following not "address the contents of the resolution it is repealing"? It seems sufficient to me.

Acknowledging the past crimes of The Pacific, also referred to as the New Pacific Order (NPO), as inscribed by SC #268,

Understanding that said violations of international standards are not to be taken lightly,

Observing, however, that the nations primarily responsible for the NPO’s duplicitous machinations have been removed from positions of power or have departed from the region altogether, including former Emperor Aleisyr and former Consul Pergamon,

Noting that the current generation of Pacifican leaders, such as Xoriet (a nation commended by this very Council in SC #266) and The Seeker of Power, do not share the former leadership’s aims of strife and conquest,

[Kylia Quilor]

I don't really agree with the repeal, but I have to agree with Wrapper that it seems to address the basic resolution itself.

[Cormactopia Prime]

How does the following not "address the contents of the resolution it is repealing"? It seems sufficient to me.

My understanding of the rule is that a repeal needs to address the text of the resolution in a more substantive way than just citing new developments as a reason for repeal? It's possible I'm just misunderstanding the rule, because you were a moderator so you would probably understand it better than me.

In any case, even if legal, I'm against repeal unless the author can identify flaws in the text of the resolution, because I don't think the new developments cited and passage of time are sufficient reason for repeal. The condemnation was for actions the Pacific's regime committed at the time, and even if you accept that they've turned over a new leaf (which I do not), they were still responsible for those actions. Fauxia would present a much stronger argument by identifying flaws in the resolution as well. There are flaws to be spotted, but I'm not interested in helping that process along because I'm not in favor of repeal, let alone helping with the drafting of it, unless I believe there's at least a decent likelihood of a better replacement condemnation passing.

[Wrapper]

My understanding of the rule is that a repeal needs to address the text of the resolution in a more substantive way than just citing new developments as a reason for repeal? It's possible I'm just misunderstanding the rule, because you were a moderator so you would probably understand it better than me.

For the record, I'm just going by what the new rule says, and giving my opinion as a player, not as a former moderator. Don't want anyone to think my statement has any authority here.

[Bormiar]

Full support.

How does the following not "address the contents of the resolution it is repealing"? It seems sufficient to me.

My understanding of the rule is that a repeal needs to address the text of the resolution in a more substantive way than just citing new developments as a reason for repeal? It's possible I'm just misunderstanding the rule, because you were a moderator so you would probably understand it better than me.

In any case, even if legal, I'm against repeal unless the author can identify flaws in the text of the resolution, because I don't think the new developments cited and passage of time are sufficient reason for repeal. The condemnation was for actions the Pacific's regime committed at the time, and even if you accept that they've turned over a new leaf (which I do not), they were still responsible for those actions. Fauxia would present a much stronger argument by identifying flaws in the resolution as well. There are flaws to be spotted, but I'm not interested in helping that process along because I'm not in favor of repeal, let alone helping with the drafting of it, unless I believe there's at least a decent likelihood of a better replacement condemnation passing.

I don't believe that's the rationale for that rule. It's actually a lot more lenient than you think.

Repeals: A REPEAL of a C&C should address the contents of the C&C in question. However, a repeal that consists of nothing but a negative of the original -- eg, Commend X because he is a good guy, Repeal Commend X because he is NOT a good guy -- may be deleted on the grounds that the SC already discussed this in the original debate. (cf "I don't like this" being forbidden in GA Repeal arguments.)

A Commendation or Condemnation is an expression of opinion by the WA. Repealing it is saying that the WA has changed its mind. You should therefore give reasons for the change of mind. These may include matters that have come to light or changed since the original resolution. See further discussion here.

Emphasis mine. I don't have any reason to think this is officially binding, but it's a far more rational understanding of that rule. Basically, don't be redundant.

Full support.

[Unibot III]

I support a repeal in principle, but I think the text should use more neutral language. I might make a stab at proposing some major amendments at a later date.

“Observing, however, that the nations primarily responsible for the NPO’s duplicitous machinations have been removed from positions of power or have departed from the region altogether, including former Emperor Aleisyr and former Consul Pergamon,”

There are a lot of other names missing here, starting with Francos Spain himself- hah!

“Gratified by the Pacific’s reforms, including:
* The abandonment of Francoism, the former state ideology that pitted nations in Feeder and Sinker regions against other nations. As the ideology was used as justification for destabilization projects, most notably in ‪Lazarus‬, this move signaled a modern and more amicable era for the NPO,”

This is not factually correct. Francoism had been officially abandoned during most of the time of NPO’s involvement in Lazarus. NPO replaced Francoism and adopted something called postmodernism or something.

“Recognizing that the world has moved on from The NPO’s former pariah status, as most of the feeder and sinker regions have renormalized relations with the Pacific following its previous diplomatic isolation,”

I don’t think it’s the place of the SC to make opinions regarding what ‘the world’ thinks. It’s also unfair to base international opinion on the GCRs, which have a shared connection to the Pacific as GCR colleagues.

“Considering that much of the evidence used against the Pacific in Lazarus, though damning in some ways, was incomplete and framed in large part by individuals biased against it, and that the NPO’s motives may have been far less malicious than was previously understood,”

This is basically propaganda.

[Custadia]

This:

Acknowledging the past crimes of The Pacific, also referred to as the New Pacific Order (NPO), as inscribed by SC #268,

Understanding that said violations of international standards are not to be taken lightly

Does not tally with this:

Considering that much of the evidence used against the Pacific in Lazarus, though damning in some ways, was incomplete and framed in large part by individuals biased against it, and that the NPO’s motives may have been far less malicious than was previously understood

[Unibot III]

Steal whatever you like from this. Just something quick that I whipped up.

Basically I don't think the resolution should sound like it was written by the Pacific. It should sound like an international body that is committed to peace, goodwill, and self-determination - and it should approach the situation cautiously and judiciously.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that in the time that has elapsed since the tragic events described in SC#268, the Pacific's state government, New Pacific Order (NPO), has changed leadership and committed to a higher standard of international conduct with respect to regional sovereignty.

Further recognizing that three years have passed without international incident from the New Pacific Order, more than thrice the time that had passed between the passage of SC#202 and SC#177,

Resolving that, although doubts remain in the international community regarding the NPO, the WA Security Council is committed to acting in all its determinations with the good faith and trust necessary for the preservation of international peace and goodwill abroad,

Acknowledging that as a feeder region, the Pacific permanantly plays an essential role in NationStates as a first port of call for newcomers. All member-nations have a stake in a lasting rehabiliation of the Pacific as a welcoming and vital community,

Noting, that notwithstanding this resolution's decision to repeal the aforementioned, the World Assembly remains a committed advocate for the furtherment of democracy and the right to self-determination of all peoples,

Hereby repeals "Condemn the Pacific."

[So Pep]

So I haven't written anything in a while, and this could be a dumpster fire and everyone hates it, but I think it deserves some attention. Feel free to tar-and-feather, it's not my first rodeo here.

Security Council Resolution #268 “Condemn The Pacific” shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The Security Council,

Celebrating its own power and unique ability to encourage reform in regions subject to its most severe and overbearing condemnations,

Acknowledging the past crimes of The Pacific, also referred to as the New Pacific Order (NPO), as inscribed by SC #268,

Understanding that said violations of international standards are not to be taken lightly,

Observing, however, that the nations primarily responsible for the NPO’s duplicitous machinations have been removed from positions of power or have departed from the region altogether, including former Emperor Aleisyr and former Consul Pergamon,

Noting that the current generation of Pacifican leaders, such as Xoriet (a nation commended by this very Council in SC #266) and The Seeker of Power, do not share the former leadership’s aims of strife and conquest,

Gratified by the Pacific’s reforms, including:

• The abandonment of Francoism, the former state ideology that pitted nations in Feeder and Sinker regions against other nations. As the ideology was used as justification for destabilization projects, most notably in Lazarus, this move signaled a modern and more amicable era for the NPO,
• The termination of its controversial "protectorship" of St Abbaddon, removing its previously-imposed roadblock to the growth of the native community of an ancient and storied region,
• Changes to the government structure, including the creation of a new charter and the addition of an elected Senator position. Though by no means did the reforms make the Pacific a democratic region, the changes further empowered the citizens and created added oversight on the region that would formerly have been unthinkable.

Recognizing that the world has moved on from The NPO’s former pariah status, as most of the feeder and sinker regions have renormalized relations with the Pacific following its previous diplomatic isolation,

Considering that much of the evidence used against the Pacific in Lazarus, though damning in some ways, was incomplete and framed in large part by individuals biased against it, and that the NPO’s motives may have been far less malicious than was previously understood,

Reserving the right to condemn the NPO once again should it relapse into its old imperialist ways,

Believing, nonetheless, that the Pacific’s redemption deserves to continue without the colossal shadow of condemnation hanging above it,

Hereby repeals SC #268 "Condemn the Pacific".

Blah blah blah, suggestions welcome, peanut gallery open.

I’d be inclined to give my approval.

[Kylia Quilor]

Steal whatever you like from this. Just something quick that I whipped up.

Basically I don't think the resolution should sound like it was written by the Pacific. It should sounded like an international body that is committed to peace, goodwill, and self-determination - and it should approach the situation cautiously and judiciously.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that in the time that has elapsed since the tragic events described in SC#268, the Pacific's state government, New Pacific Order (NPO), has changed leadership and committed to a higher standard of international conduct with respect to regional sovereignty.

Further recognizing that three years have passed without international incident from the New Pacific Order, more than thrice the time that had passed between the passage of SC#202 and SC#177,

Resolving that, although doubts remain in the international community regarding the NPO, the WA Security Council is committed to acting in all its determinations with the good faith and trust necessary for the preservation of international peace and goodwill abroad,

Acknowledging that as a feeder region, the Pacific permanantly plays an essential role in NationStates as a first port of call for newcomers. All member-nations have a stake in a lasting rehabiliation of the Pacific as a welcoming and vital community,

Noting, that notwithstanding this resolution's decision to repeal the aforementioned, the World Assembly remains a committed advocate for the furtherment of democracy and the right to self-determination of all peoples,

Hereby repeals "Condemn the Pacific."

It may avoid the mistakes you addressed for the original, but it comes out more mealy-mouthed and double-talked.

[Unibot III]

Steal whatever you like from this. Just something quick that I whipped up.

Basically I don't think the resolution should sound like it was written by the Pacific. It should sounded like an international body that is committed to peace, goodwill, and self-determination - and it should approach the situation cautiously and judiciously.

It may avoid the mistakes you addressed for the original, but it comes out more mealy-mouthed and double-talked.

That’s because I wrote an argument that I agreed with.

The argument it is taking is that you or I or others may have our individual doubts about NPO, but the WASC has to act as a higher conscience that risks being wrong, and extends its trust in good faith, because those acts of faith are a necessary condition of peace and goodwill.

I do agree with that.

I think it’s also essential to stress that no one benefits from a failure to reconcile, the Pacific is a permanent and important part of NS.

The best case for NPO is the time that has passed without incident. Most of the other reasons aren’t very convincing — the legal reforms are not very substantive, Elegarth was a second in command in NPO for like a decade, Francoism has been officially discontinued and denounced several times now .. etc. But you can’t argue with time.

I don’t like Cormac’s draft because I think it sets the precedent that might encourage authors to write “technical” repeals of regions without a replacement ready. You shouldn’t be writing a technical repeal if you do not intend to replace the resolution — it’s disingenuous. You should write what the WASC believes without ulterior considerations.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I don’t like Cormac’s draft because I think it sets the precedent that might encourage authors to write “technical” repeals of regions without a replacement ready. You shouldn’t be writing a technical repeal if you do not intend to replace the resolution — it’s disingenuous. You should write what the WASC believes without ulterior considerations.

I'd appreciate if you'd bring these comments to my draft when you have a minute, as I don't want to derail Fauxia's draft thread.

[Kylia Quilor]

It may avoid the mistakes you addressed for the original, but it comes out more mealy-mouthed and double-talked.

That’s because I wrote an argument that I agreed with.

The argument it is taking is that you or I or others may have our individual doubts about NPO, but the WASC has to act as a higher conscience that risks being wrong, and extends its trust in good faith, because those acts of faith are a necessary condition of peace and goodwill.

I do agree with that.

I think it’s also essential to stress that no one benefits from a failure to reconcile, the Pacific is a permanent and important part of NS.

The best case for NPO is the time that has passed without incident. Most of the other reasons aren’t very convincing — the legal reforms are not very substantive, Elegarth was a second in command in NPO for like a decade, Francoism has been officially discontinued and denounced several times now .. etc. But you can’t argue with time.

I don’t like Cormac’s draft because I think it sets the precedent that might encourage authors to write “technical” repeals of regions without a replacement ready. You shouldn’t be writing a technical repeal if you do not intend to replace the resolution — it’s disingenuous. You should write what the WASC believes without ulterior considerations.

Fair enough. I don't agree with you that the WASC needs to act with a conscience, it should (and does) act as a petty political club for regional elites and gameplay veterans to snipe at eachother over decade-old drama while abusing the powers [violet] gave us.

But, I can see where your limited draft comes from.

[Unibot III]

Fair enough. I don't agree with you that the WASC needs to act with a conscience, it should (and does) act as a petty political club for regional elites and gameplay veterans to snipe at eachother over decade-old drama while abusing the powers [violet] gave us.

But, I can see where your limited draft comes from.

I don’t think [violet]’s intention was to create a bitter club of old grievances. And I’m not that bitter!!

[Kylia Quilor]

I don't think her intent matters - she's not coming down from on high to direct things as long as we don't break rules. But I certainly don't think that a body that is supposed to have every resolution be a double-edged sword is meant to be a uniformly high minded body.

[Sedgistan]

How does the following not "address the contents of the resolution it is repealing"? It seems sufficient to me.

My understanding of the rule is that a repeal needs to address the text of the resolution in a more substantive way than just citing new developments as a reason for repeal? It's possible I'm just misunderstanding the rule, because you were a moderator so you would probably understand it better than me.

For the record, Wrapper's reading of this is in line with mine. Rule 1b (relevant argument) is rarely invoked for repeals drafted on the forums, as almost all of them make some effort to address the contents of what they're repealing. That may not be a point-by-point rebuttal of the original resolution, but even just acknowledging its core argument and explaining why that isn't valid, is generally sufficient.

[Cormactopia Prime]

My understanding of the rule is that a repeal needs to address the text of the resolution in a more substantive way than just citing new developments as a reason for repeal? It's possible I'm just misunderstanding the rule, because you were a moderator so you would probably understand it better than me.

For the record, Wrapper's reading of this is in line with mine. Rule 1b (relevant argument) is rarely invoked for repeals drafted on the forums, as almost all of them make some effort to address the contents of what they're repealing. That may not be a point-by-point rebuttal of the original resolution, but even just acknowledging its core argument and explaining why that isn't valid, is generally sufficient.

Thanks for clarifying, because I've definitely gone to greater lengths in past repeals than I needed to so this is good information to have.

[Elegarth]

The best case for NPO is the time that has passed without incident. Most of the other reasons aren’t very convincing — the legal reforms are not very substantive, Elegarth was a second in command in NPO for like a decade, Francoism has been officially discontinued and denounced several times now .. etc. But you can’t argue with time.

I'd like to point out this is inaccurate. I was regent for less than one year prior to the NLO incident, which I opposed and I was minority within the Senate. The one person you are thinking of that was Second in Command for years was ROTHINZIL. She retired shortly before I took her place. But I wasn't the Regent nor second in command "for like a decade".