[PASSED] Repeal "Condemn The Pacific"

[Goobergunchia]

Repeal "Condemn The Pacific"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal | Resolution: SC#268 | Proposed by: Cormactopia Prime

---

Description: WA Security Council Resolution #268: Condemn The Pacific shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The Security Council:

Recalling that the New Pacific Order -- the ruling regime of the Pacific -- has a long history of committing flagrant acts of aggression, many of which were articulated by SC#268 and a preceding resolution which has been repealed, SC#177;

Maintaining, however, that the inaccuracies of SC#268 weaken the argument in favor of condemnation to such a degree that the Pacific cannot be considered worthy of condemnation based on the arguments set forth by SC#268, warranting repeal;

Noting that while Feux and A mean old man did infiltrate Lazarus and Osiris through puppet nations, these nations were not "notable members of the New Pacific Order" at the time of said infiltrations, nor were they members of the NPO at all during that time period;

Dismissing claims that these infiltrations constituted intelligence operations conducted by the NPO, due to a lack of evidence to demonstrate the NPO knew of these infiltrations while they were ongoing;

Acknowledging that Aleisyr and Pergamon, at the time the nations chiefly responsible for governing the Pacific, later became aware of these infiltrations but allowed these nations membership and advancement in the NPO, without informing either Lazarus or Osiris of the infiltrations, but that their reprehensible silence and inaction do not prove the aforementioned claims;

Celebrating that Aleisyr, Pergamon, and other nations responsible for the NPO's duplicitous machinations resigned or were removed from power, in some cases departing the Pacific altogether, and that they were replaced with a new generation of leadership that does not appear to share past aims of strife and conquest;

Observing that Topid, the nation that authored SC#268, has released a communique through a puppet nation expressing its government's belief that the Pacific has made progress toward reform, enough so that Topid has made peace with the NPO;

Recognizing that there is a growing consensus among major global powers that apparent reform efforts undertaken by the NPO are progressing sufficiently to warrant reopening diplomatic relations with the Pacific;

Reflecting that this renewed openness by prominent regions to normalization of relations with the NPO indicates a rising optimism that the Pacific can rejoin the community of regions in good faith, without further condemnation by this body;

Respecting that the nations and regions of the world may yet have varying opinions on the veracity of the NPO's alleged reform efforts, but fervently hoping that such efforts will prove sufficient to avoid any need for this body to condemn the Pacific a third time;

Hereby Repeals SC#268: Condemn The Pacific.

Co-authored by Fauxia

Weed's (Topid's) statement in regard to the NPO's alleged reform efforts can be found here.

Suggestions are welcome!

[Outer Sparta]

Opposed to any repeal of the condemnation of The Pacific, but this one is much more objective than the other draft, which goes as far to say that it doesn't even think what happened in Lazarus is even bad.

[Unibot III]

I disapprove of this draft because I think it sets a 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 disapprove of this draft because I think it sets a 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.

A technical repeal can also be what the Security Council believes.

Does the Security Council believe SC#268 was inaccurate in the ways the proposal states? Most likely, because it was.
Does the Security Council believe SC#268's overemphasis on democracy sets unsettling precedents for peaceful non-democratic regions? Quite possibly.
Does the Security Council believe Topid making peace with the NPO and supporting their reform efforts is relevant to repeal? I think so.

But does the Security Council believe the NPO has reformed with the same enthusiasm as Fauxia has articulated? I'm skeptical. I don't know that regions being willing to give the NPO a chance necessarily means they are full throttle sold on them turning over a new leaf, so much so that they're willing to vote for that level of enthusiastic approval of the NPO's progress when they could instead vote for a draft that focuses on what was wrong with the resolution subject to repeal. This draft does address reforms, but in such a way that it focuses on Topid's views and maintains the Security Council's respect for differences of opinion.

There is nothing wrong with using a repeal to focus on what's wrong with the resolution to warrant its repeal, instead of focusing on what has supposedly changed since the resolution's passage. You don't need a replacement. Resolutions have been repealed in the past for being inaccurate, without replacement.

In any case, at the end of the day what the Security Council believes is articulated by what it votes to pass.

[Unibot III]

Well, for instance, if there were some bad flaws in a WA Liberation resolution, a bad faith player might try to repeal the resolution on technical grounds without the promise of a replacement — for the most part, the WASC has frowned upon this behaviour and favoured keeping flawed resolutions on the books if they’re deemed necessary unless a replacement can be secured.

This resolution would be precedent setting in that sense. It’s not how the WASC has traditionally operated — usually the WASC values purpose over argument.

I think a better approach for a repeal of the condemnation is one that focuses on the WASC’s goals and commitments — the WASC acts on a higher level, extending good faith under reasonable conditions. I think it’s possible to be skeptical of the NPO and also believe that the WASC should rise above of our own individual skepticism because it has to exercise international leadership.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Well, for instance, if there were some bad flaws in a WA Liberation resolution, a bad faith player might try to repeal the resolution on technical grounds without the promise of a replacement — for the most part, the WASC has frowned upon this behaviour and favoured keeping flawed resolutions on the books if they’re deemed necessary unless a replacement can be secured.

This resolution would be precedent setting in that sense. It’s not how the WASC has traditionally operated — usually the WASC values purpose over argument.

But this isn't a repeal of a liberation resolution, and there is nothing immediate at stake by repealing SC#268 that would require an immediate replacement.

I think a better approach for a repeal of the condemnation is one that focuses on the WASC’s goals and commitments — the WASC acts on a higher level, extending good faith under reasonable conditions. I think it’s possible to be skeptical of the NPO and also believe that the WASC should rise above of our own individual skepticism because it has to exercise international leadership.

I don't see any reason the Security Council should try to insist that anyone "rise above" their skepticism, when it is entirely possible to repeal the resolution while respecting differences of opinion in regard to the NPO's reform effort. It isn't necessary to believe the NPO to believe SC#268 should be repealed. Respecting differences of opinion and declining to lend credence to a future for the NPO that is still uncertain -- they've only had one Emperor since this happened -- is a responsible course of action for the Security Council to take. The NPO can do its own work in persuading regions it's reformed without undue Security Council help.

[Kylia Quilor]

While I don't like the idea of repealing the condemnation - while it may be The Pacific has changed, I haven't seen evidence of it (but I did just miss three years of events, so that's a factor) and I'm gonna be very careful before trusting the NPO again, even if they have turned over a new leaf.

THAT SAID, this repeal is a much better version - as Cormac says, it's not praising the NPO and saying they're practically perfect now, but acknowledging a more limited reality, and accepting that NPO is a different government than it was at the time of the condemnation.

EDIT: And I have to agree that I find Unibot's concerns overwrought, as liberations and condemnations are very different things. Also, I haven't really seen much evidence that the SC is either capable or willing to honor precedent in any meaningful sense, so it seems a worry without basis.

[Unibot III]

Well, for instance, if there were some bad flaws in a WA Liberation resolution, a bad faith player might try to repeal the resolution on technical grounds without the promise of a replacement — for the most part, the WASC has frowned upon this behaviour and favoured keeping flawed resolutions on the books if they’re deemed necessary unless a replacement can be secured.

This resolution would be precedent setting in that sense. It’s not how the WASC has traditionally operated — usually the WASC values purpose over argument.

But this isn't a repeal of a liberation resolution, and there is nothing immediate at stake by repealing SC#268 that would require an immediate replacement.

I think a better approach for a repeal of the condemnation is one that focuses on the WASC’s goals and commitments — the WASC acts on a higher level, extending good faith under reasonable conditions. I think it’s possible to be skeptical of the NPO and also believe that the WASC should rise above of our own individual skepticism because it has to exercise international leadership.

I don't see any reason the Security Council should try to insist that anyone "rise above" their skepticism, when it is entirely possible to repeal the resolution while respecting differences of opinion in regard to the NPO's reform effort. It isn't necessary to believe the NPO to believe SC#268 should be repealed. Respecting differences of opinion and declining to lend credence to a future for the NPO that is still uncertain -- they've only had one Emperor since this happened -- is a responsible course of action for the Security Council to take. The NPO can do its own work in persuading regions it's reformed without undue Security Council help.

I think if you believe the SC should continue the condemnation, you should present a replacement draft in tandem with a technical repeal.

It flies in the face of how this body has operated for an author to say a resolution’s spirit is correct, the text is flawed, and pursue a repeal without a replacement. It’s entirely in bad faith.

The precedent that could be set has consequences for all activities in the WA, including condemnations, condemnations, and liberations.

The WA should in my view address the Pacific clearly and honestly: should the condemnation stay or go? This resolution hides behind technicalities to avoid that important question. Frankly it’s immaterial whether the original resolution is crap if you’re not prepared to replace it, the question of the day is whether the WASC should continue condemning the Pacific.

Note, I am also not arguing that the WASC should insist people rise above, I am saying the WASC should rise above our skepticism. I can’t shake the feeling that despite my own doubts about NPO, it’s within the WASC’s mission and purpose to extend the olive branch and take that leap of faith.

[Kylia Quilor]

Why should the WASC have to engage in what is arguably naiveite for the sake of it?

[Cormactopia Prime]

I think if you believe the SC should continue the condemnation, you should present a replacement draft in tandem with a technical repeal.

It flies in the face of how this body has operated for an author to say a resolution’s spirit is correct, the text is flawed, and pursue a repeal without a replacement. It’s entirely in bad faith.

I'm not going to waste my time writing a replacement draft doomed to failure. I've already outlined why I am seeking to repeal the condemnation despite believing the Pacific should remain condemned, so I'm being entirely open and honest about my motives -- I didn't have to be. There is nothing bad faith going on here.

As to it flying in the face of how this body has operated, I don't think that's true. I'm all but certain there have been resolutions repealed along more technical lines without a replacement, but honestly this is such a contrived line of argument I can't be bothered to go digging to find one. Maybe someone else will. Regardless, though, nowhere is it written that the Security Council must always operate as it has in the past. Things change. Times change. If there's a good reason to do things differently than how they've been done in the past, then we should do things a new way instead of sticking to some alleged tradition I'm not convinced even exists.

The precedent that could be set has consequences for all activities in the WA, including condemnations, condemnations, and liberations.

I disagree, because commendations and condemnations are markedly different from liberations, but aside from that I think Kylia is absolutely right that you are greatly exaggerating the importance of precedent. Most regions don't make decisions about Security Council votes with things like precedent in mind.

The WA should in my view address the Pacific clearly and honestly: should the condemnation stay or go? This resolution hides behind technicalities to avoid that important question. Frankly it’s immaterial whether the original resolution is crap if you’re not prepared to replace it, the question of the day is whether the WASC should continue condemning the Pacific.

This proposal does not hide behind technicalities to avoid addressing whether the resolution should stay or go. In the second clause, the proposal makes clear that the resolution should be repealed, and then spends the rest of the text articulating why. The proposal's argument is that the resolution should be repealed because of inaccuracies and the possibility of setting an unsettling standard for which forms of regional governance are to be condemned. Reform is touched upon, but primarily to note the author himself believes the NPO's reform efforts, while the text of the proposal remains neutral and respectful of varying opinions.

You may not like an argument primarily based on inaccuracies, but it is very much still an argument for repeal. There is nothing wrong with repealing a resolution for being inaccurate. The truth matters, the truth is not a mere technicality, and parts of SC#268 aren't true.

The question of the day is not whether the Security Council should continue condemning the Pacific. That question is left open, and will be decided if someone authors a new condemnation, and depending on whether the Security Council passes or rejects it. The question of the day is whether SC#268 should be repealed. That's what a repeal does at its core. Could it emphasize a preference for or against future condemnation? Yes, it could, but that isn't necessary. It's fine to leave the question open and let the Security Council settle it should a new proposal arise, or if no new proposal arises, then the question will be settled by omission.

Note, I am also not arguing that the WASC should insist people rise above, I am saying the WASC should rise above our skepticism. I can’t shake the feeling that despite my own doubts about NPO, it’s within the WASC’s mission and purpose to extend the olive branch and take that leap of faith.

I couldn't disagree more. The Security Council giving the NPO undue praise for its apparent reform efforts could considerably aid the NPO in persuading other regions it's reformed, even if it actually hasn't on a permanent basis. There are real stakes for other regions if the NPO's reform is deceptive or if it's genuine but temporary, i.e., if East Durthang, Elegarth, and Xoriet are being genuine but the NPO reverts to its old ways another Emperor or two down the line. There's no reason for the Security Council to come down on the idealistic -- less charitably, naive -- side of praising the NPO's reform efforts and later turn out to be wrong, and thus complicit in aiding the NPO in diplomatic recovery only to be a menace to other regions again. It's fine to repeal the condemnation and let regions make of it what they will.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

I haven’t got any ideas that add to this draft. However, I do like the dispassionate style it’s written in. There is also a nice logic and flow to it.

I’ll be happy to see the Condemnation repealed; whichever of the two versions currently being drafted gets to quorum I would recommend TWP to support. However, from a personal point of view I prefer this one stylistically.

I disapprove of this draft because I think it sets a 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.

Slippery slope argument? Is that really the best you can come up with?

[Cormactopia Prime]

I haven’t got any ideas that add to this draft. However, I do like the dispassionate style it’s written in. There is also a nice logic and flow to it.

I’ll be happy to see the Condemnation repealed; whichever of the two versions currently being drafted gets to quorum I would recommend TWP to support. However, from a personal point of view I prefer this one stylistically.

Thanks BBD! If you think of anything further, please don't hesitate to let me know.

As a general note to everyone, I've fleshed out the proposal a bit in response to feedback received by telegram. The changes are to the second clause, as well as additional language that engages more with the NPO's supposed reform efforts, basically noting that GCRs ("major global powers") are reaching a consensus the alleged reform efforts warrant giving the NPO a second chance and leaving them without condemnation at present. That still maintains the Security Council's neutrality in regard to the NPO's supposed reforms, but more robustly makes the case for repealing the condemnation without a replacement.

The additional language added quite a bit to the character length, so I removed the clause related to SC#268's criticism of the NPO's system of government. That clause was mostly superfluous anyway and I think the additional language is more important to achieve broader support for the proposal.

[Crowheim]

Echoing what others have said thus far in the thread, this draft presents a much more logical and objective reasoning for the repeal of the NPO's condemn than it's competitor.

I like it conceptually but question if there's anything more that could be put in the draft, the case is relatively strong already but I have a feeling it could become stronger with additional points. However, if there are no such additions to be made, it's probably sufficient as it is.

I can't spot any glaring grammar, spelling, or formatting errors.

Solid draft, tentative support.

[Fauxia]

So, for the record, the line that you most object to (and that most other people in the thread for my proposal object to), I have said about sixteen times (before you ever posted there) that I would get rid of. I have been fairly busy IRL and have not had the energy during my free time to rewrite. Hell, it hadn't been posted on for like two weeks until some guy decided to bump it, at which point you decided to repeat what about a dozen other people had said.

I'd be happy to incorporate this into my draft, without the "blatant propaganda." Or else, if you'd rather not associate with my draft, that's fine too, it's cool. Honestly, this is better writing than I am likely to ever do.

My intention has never been to propagandize, only that I don't think Condemn the Pacific should really exist at this time, and certainly not the current resolution.

[Cormactopia Prime]

So, for the record, the line that you most object to (and that most other people in the thread for my proposal object to), I have said about sixteen times (before you ever posted there) that I would get rid of. I have been fairly busy IRL and have not had the energy during my free time to rewrite. Hell, it hadn't been posted on for like two weeks until some guy decided to bump it, at which point you decided to repeat what about a dozen other people had said.

I'd be happy to incorporate this into my draft, without the "blatant propaganda." Or else, if you'd rather not associate with my draft, that's fine too, it's cool. Honestly, this is better writing than I am likely to ever do.

My intention has never been to propagandize, only that I don't think Condemn the Pacific should really exist at this time, and certainly not the current resolution.

I know you said you intended to remove the Lazarus clause, and I only posted my objection to it to register that I also disapproved of it -- but for whatever it's worth, whenever anyone has brought that clause up in conversation with me, I've mentioned to them you said you were going to remove it.

That is certainly the most objectionable clause but I object to the overall tone of your draft as well as being too pro-NPO.

That said, if you're saying it wasn't your intention to come across that way then I'm sure it wasn't and that's just how it reads, so I'd be willing to work on a joint draft with you if you'd like, as in incorporating parts of my proposal into yours or vice versa and then co-author credit to whichever one of us isn't the primary author of whichever proposal we decide on. Let me know if you'd like to do that, otherwise we can just work on them separately and see which voters prefer. Thank you for the compliment on my writing, by the way, but you're not giving yourself enough credit -- I think your writing was good, I just objected to the tone of it.

[Myrth]

it's not praising the NPO and saying they're practically perfect now

We've been practically perfect in every way since day 1. We don't need the WA to confirm this.

[Cormactopia Prime]

it's not praising the NPO and saying they're practically perfect now

We've been practically perfect in every way since day 1. We don't need the WA to confirm this.

Fortunately more reasonable people than you are the ones who actually speak for the NPO, hence why anyone is even considering repealing the condemnation.

[Drop Your Pants]

We've been practically perfect in every way since day 1. We don't need the WA to confirm this.

Well it was the UN back then

[WayNeacTia]

it's not praising the NPO and saying they're practically perfect now

We've been practically perfect in every way since day 1. We don't need the WA to confirm this.

This statement right here, proves why the first condemnation shouldn't have been repealed in the first place.

[Great Algerstonia]

We've been practically perfect in every way since day 1. We don't need the WA to confirm this.

This statement right here, proves why the first condemnation shouldn't have been repealed in the first place.

This statement right here proves that you need to improve your sense of humor.

[Quebecshire]

This statement right here, proves why the first condemnation shouldn't have been repealed in the first place.

If you're taking the sarcastic comments of Myrth over anything Elegarth and Xoriet have done or the real and noticeable improvements the NPO has made, then that speaks way more volumes about your open mindedness to reform and improvement in the Security Council than it does about the NPO.

[Cormactopia Prime]

This statement right here proves that you need to improve your sense of humor.

Myrth's rabidly pro-NPO comments aren't jokes. That said, Myrth also isn't in any way representative of the NPO so Quebecshire is correct on that point.

[Fauxia]

So, for the record, the line that you most object to (and that most other people in the thread for my proposal object to), I have said about sixteen times (before you ever posted there) that I would get rid of. I have been fairly busy IRL and have not had the energy during my free time to rewrite. Hell, it hadn't been posted on for like two weeks until some guy decided to bump it, at which point you decided to repeat what about a dozen other people had said.

I'd be happy to incorporate this into my draft, without the "blatant propaganda." Or else, if you'd rather not associate with my draft, that's fine too, it's cool. Honestly, this is better writing than I am likely to ever do.

My intention has never been to propagandize, only that I don't think Condemn the Pacific should really exist at this time, and certainly not the current resolution.

I know you said you intended to remove the Lazarus clause, and I only posted my objection to it to register that I also disapproved of it -- but for whatever it's worth, whenever anyone has brought that clause up in conversation with me, I've mentioned to them you said you were going to remove it.

That is certainly the most objectionable clause but I object to the overall tone of your draft as well as being too pro-NPO.

That said, if you're saying it wasn't your intention to come across that way then I'm sure it wasn't and that's just how it reads, so I'd be willing to work on a joint draft with you if you'd like, as in incorporating parts of my proposal into yours or vice versa and then co-author credit to whichever one of us isn't the primary author of whichever proposal we decide on. Let me know if you'd like to do that, otherwise we can just work on them separately and see which voters prefer. Thank you for the compliment on my writing, by the way, but you're not giving yourself enough credit -- I think your writing was good, I just objected to the tone of it.

Thanks Cormac. I'd be willing to do that, I think this is probably the less controversial route to go about the repeal anyway.

I'd be willing to help write, I just don't know what to add at this point

[Cormactopia Prime]

Thanks Cormac. I'd be willing to do that, I think this is probably the less controversial route to go about the repeal anyway.

I'd be willing to help write, I just don't know what to add at this point

I've been fairly absent from NS the past few days, but I'll DM you sometime this weekend and we can talk about it!

[Myrth]

We've been practically perfect in every way since day 1. We don't need the WA to confirm this.

This statement right here, proves why the first condemnation shouldn't have been repealed in the first place.

You people are far too easy, it's almost not fun any more.

Almost.