[DRAFT] Repeal: "Commend August"

[Minskiev]

Hi there. This draft is not politically motivated.

Replace pending. I'm busy okay ;_;

The Security Council,

Acknowledging August’s numerous accomplishments including founding the Augustin Alliance (AA), an alliance composed of 4 incredibly successful regions with a combined voting power of over 400,

Believing that August, through both its accomplishments and that of its satellite states, may indeed be worthy of a commendation,

Finding, however, that the current resolution (SC#228) inadequately explains how August is commendable for the following reasons:

• SC#228 mentions Narnia as if it were on par with the other 4 regions it mentions being in the Augustin Alliance: Narnia was inactive from the beginning, with the Delegate's endorsement count peaking at 11 and steadily going downhill.
• SC#228 includes a clause on how Ridgefield achieved 200 nations when at the time the world contained 60,000; comparing region size to world size says nothing about the accomplishments of the aforementioned region. Furthermore, this would currently translate to 750 nations. 28 regions are at this level, including 19 non-feeders/non-sinkers, and 13 non-puppet regions.
• Half of SC#228 is unnecessary fluff; a quarter being an explanation of the themes of the AA, which are not commendable in the slightest, and another quarter being restatements of the fact that the five regions it mentions forms August’s Augustin Alliance (led by August).
• The “Acknowledging” clause of SC#288 is inarticulate and attempts to give credit to the nominee for the community development of the Augustin Alliance’s regions, something only achievable by community-wide efforts.
• SC#228 claims to be “moved by the aid [August] has provided other founders in region building,” which is both impossible due to the resolution’s immobile nature and incredibly vague, as it does not elaborate further on which founders it has helped and how.
• SC#228 references the Joint Task Force, the military of the AA, and its commendable destruction of Union of the Fascist Nations. It then disgraces the same clause by mentioning its commonplace “participation in the ‘defense and liberation of multiple regions,’” which cannot be solely attributed to the AA and thus does not belong in the commendation of its Founder. Moreover, it misspells a region it mentions a bullet point above.

The Security Council hereby repeals [resolution=SC#228]Commend August[/resolution].

Co-authored by Quebecshire.

[Giovanniland]

First read isn't very favorable, with lots of unconvincing reasons for the repeal. Opposed.

SC#228 mentions Narnia as if it were on par with the other 4 regions it mentions being in the Augustin Alliance: Narnia was inactive from the beginning, with the Delegate's endorsement count peaking at 11 and steadily going downhill.

I don't think the resolution mentions it "as if it were on par with the other 4 regions." Sure, it's much smaller than the other ones, but is that really an argument to repeal? I am of the opinion that region size should not negate the time and effort spent on a region, especially if it has an unique theme as the commendation says.

Half of SC#228 is unnecessary fluff; a quarter being an explanation of the themes of the AA, which isn’t commendable in the slightest, and another quarter being restatements of the fact that the 5 regions it mentions forms August’s Augustin Alliance (led by August).

How are the themes "not commendable in the slightest"? I believe August's creativity in founding five regions with very different themes and governments, and have most of them be successful at the present, is very much commendable.

Inexplicably, 2 of SC#228’s 14 bullet points use (differing) punctuation while the rest do not, a clear oversight.

Really? Repeals should ideally focus on proposal content, not on punctuation, which is something very minor and doesn't harm the rest of the resolution. This seems to me as if you've run out of plausible arguments and then proceeded to point very small mistakes that aren't enough to repeal a resolution.

The “Acknowledging” clause of SC#288 is inarticulate and attempts to give credit to the nominee for the community development of the Augustin Alliance’s regions, something only achievable by community-wide efforts.

Community development is indeed only achieved by community-wide efforts, but doesn't mean that one nation can't spearhead these efforts and have others help in more supporting roles. Plenty of other nations have been commended for similar roles.

SC#228 claims to be “moved by the aid [August] has provided other founders in region building,” which is both impossible due to the resolution’s immobile nature and incredibly vague, as it doesn’t elaborate further on which founders it’s helped and how.

I don't understand the argument "impossible due to the resolution’s immobile nature", since I think you've got the wrong interpretation of the adjective moved here. It mean "having strong feelings of sadness or sympathy, because of something someone has said or done". I think the clause means support through the NS Leaders discord server of which August is an admin (which is frequented by hundreds of people, so elaborating on which founders it helped is impractical), although I admit it could of course be clearer.

SC#228 references the Joint Task Force, the military of the AA, and its commendable destruction of Union of the Fascist Nations. It then fluffs the same clause by mentioning its “participation in occupying a region, participation in the ‘defense and liberation of multiple regions,’ and aid in the destruction of a region,” all of which are rather commonplace and cannot be solely attributed to the AA and thus don’t belong in the commendation of its Founder. Moreover, it misspells a region it mentions a bullet point above.

This seems incorrect, as it does not "fluff the same clause": it mentions Union of the Fascist Nations, then Viertes Reich, and then US Military, and moreover is not simply a laundry list as it does mention some context as to why those operations happened. The only vague thing I could see is "Participated in the defense and liberation of multiple regions". I believe other commendations and condemnations have also mentioned certain organizations or nations' roles in leading operations in which they were not the sole military, so the argument that they "cannot be solely attributed to the AA" doesn't hold.

[WayNeacTia]

Nothing here is even remotely convincing.

[Varanius]

Believing that August, by its accomplishments and that of its satellite states, may indeed be worthy of a commendation, though that the current resolution is inadequate in many ways,

Will you be pursuing a replacement?

• SC#228 mentions Narnia as if it were on par with the other 4 regions it mentions being in the Augustin Alliance: Narnia was inactive from the beginning, with the Delegate's endorsement count peaking at 11 and steadily going downhill.

Meh. This feels a little elitist. But regardless, isn’t exactly a strong clause.

SC#228 includes a clause on how Ridgefield achieved 200 nations when at the time the world contained 60,000; currently, this would translate to 750 nations. 28 regions are at this level, including 19 non-feeders/non-sinkers, and 13 non-puppet regions. Furthermore, comparing region size to world size says nothing about the accomplishments of the aforementioned region.

I would argue that comparing to world size adds important context to the size of the regions that august constructed. Now, whether or not the original resolution specifies the degree to which August’s actions contributed to the region’s growth is different, and would be a more valid concern.

Half of SC#228 is unnecessary fluff;

Is this an exact statistic or?

a quarter being an explanation of the themes of the AA, which isn’t commendable in the slightest, and another quarter being restatements of the fact that the 5 regions it mentions forms August’s Augustin Alliance (led by August).

Again, would you be interested in pursuing a replacement?

Inexplicably, 2 of SC#228’s 14 bullet points use (differing) punctuation while the rest do not, a clear oversight.

This feels a little…nitpicky.

The “Acknowledging” clause of SC#288 is inarticulate and attempts to give credit to the nominee for the community development of the Augustin Alliance’s regions, something only achievable by community-wide efforts.

I mean…he built the regions didn’t he? I’m not saying that gives him automatic credit for everything in it but the unity between them would largely be due to the fact they’re in the Augustin Alliance, right?

SC#228 claims to be “moved by the aid [August] has provided other founders in region building,” which is both impossible due to the resolution’s immobile nature and incredibly vague, as it doesn’t elaborate further on which founders it’s helped and how.

A fair point. It is rather vague.

SC#228 references the Joint Task Force, the military of the AA, and its commendable destruction of Union of the Fascist Nations. It then fluffs the same clause by mentioning its “participation in occupying a region, participation in the ‘defense and liberation of multiple regions,’ and aid in the destruction of a region,” all of which are rather commonplace and cannot be solely attributed to the AA and thus don’t belong in the commendation of its Founder. Moreover, it misspells a region it mentions a bullet point above.

This is a good point, and an actual oversight on the original.

It notes how Ridgefield was once entirely composed of WA nations; both a feat accomplished in mere seconds and, for Ridgefield’s scale, accomplishable by virtually every Border Controls Officer. Additionally, it’s currently scraping by 40% WA nations, never mind 100%.

The fact that it’s not currently of such a size doesn’t mean it isn’t. As far as I’m aware it’s not been policy to repeal commendations of dead regions or inactive individuals just because they’re no longer active.

I’d be in favor of this resolution in the event a replacement was also sent in. Aside from that, this doesn’t make a strong enough case on its own to warrant a repeal.

[Tinhampton]

The “Acknowledging” clause of SC#288 is inarticulate and attempts to give credit to the nominee for the community development of the Augustin Alliance’s regions...

I knew GH was important but I had no idea he was that important!

This draft is not politically motivated.

Really? Despite the fact that Andy mentioned in his repeal thread a few hours ago that "if I had any interest in petty clawbacks, I would have gone for August's commendation" and that your co-author's regional military levied sanctions against the now-defunct Joint Task Force almost as soon as the URA's recommendation dispatch on Andy's Liberation was published?

I told Debussy this would happen three weeks ago. Opposed.

[Quebecshire]

This draft is not politically motivated.

Really? Despite the fact that Andy mentioned in his repeal thread a few hours ago that "if I had any interest in petty clawbacks, I would have gone for August's commendation"

This was drafted long before a comment by Andy from earlier today. Such is provable by Google docs revision history.

and that your co-author's regional military levied sanctions against the now-defunct Joint Task Force almost as soon as the URA's recommendation dispatch on Andy's Liberation was published?

Aside from the fact that this claim (the timing bits) is dubious, that's irrelevant to the resolution itself. You made a total fool of yourself during that controversy, not sure why you'd want to continue.

Walrus and I will respond to the criticisms offered by Gio and Vara when we're both able to sit down and go back to the resolution again.

[RiderSyl]

This draft is not politically motivated.

"Don't believe your lying eyes!" Come on Mins, it's clear what this is.

I have to say though, going after August's Commendation is a tall task. It's going to take some very convincing arguments to tear down the commend-worthiness of August's in-game accomplishments, and I'm... not sure you've managed that here.

[Honeydewistania]

Commend August is not a very well written resolution (sorry jinkies). It focuses a lot on irrelevant details instead of commendable bits.

That said, "this is not political" is complete cap and there’s no point trying to hide it. At the very least, you’re banking on those still on the August hate train to lend some votes in favour. I actually recommend waiting until everyone forgets about hating August to propose this, so other people don’t see this as political as they are now

[WayNeacTia]

Commend August is not a very well written resolution (sorry jinkies). It focuses a lot on irrelevant details instead of commendable bits.

That said, "this is not political" is complete cap and there’s no point trying to hide it. At the very least, you’re banking on those still on the August hate train to lend some votes in favour. I actually recommend waiting until everyone forgets about hating August to propose this, so other people don’t see this as political as they are now

I would have at least waited for the accusation to come in myself.

[Aivintis]

I find this very funny, even if it isn't politically motivated.

[Minskiev]

First read isn't very favorable, with lots of unconvincing reasons for the repeal. Opposed.

SC#228 mentions Narnia as if it were on par with the other 4 regions it mentions being in the Augustin Alliance: Narnia was inactive from the beginning, with the Delegate's endorsement count peaking at 11 and steadily going downhill.

I don't think the resolution mentions it "as if it were on par with the other 4 regions." Sure, it's much smaller than the other ones, but is that really an argument to repeal? I am of the opinion that region size should not negate the time and effort spent on a region, especially if it has an unique theme as the commendation says.

Sure it's cool and all to have a small magic-y book-based region...but is it really commendable?

How are the themes "not commendable in the slightest"? I believe August's creativity in founding five regions with very different themes and governments, and have most of them be successful at the present, is very much commendable.

But is the success or the themes commendable? If I made 5 unique regions and I designed banners and WFEs and whatever for it...and then didn't do anything with it, would that be commendable?

Really? Repeals should ideally focus on proposal content, not on punctuation, which is something very minor and doesn't harm the rest of the resolution. This seems to me as if you've run out of plausible arguments and then proceeded to point very small mistakes that aren't enough to repeal a resolution.

I've run out of arguments in the middle of the list? Many, many repeals have focused on punctuation. Why is mine different?

Community development is indeed only achieved by community-wide efforts, but doesn't mean that one nation can't spearhead these efforts and have others help in more supporting roles. Plenty of other nations have been commended for similar roles.

Eh, alright. But they didn't do all of it.

I don't understand the argument "impossible due to the resolution’s immobile nature", since I think you've got the wrong interpretation of the adjective moved here. It mean "having strong feelings of sadness or sympathy, because of something someone has said or done". I think the clause means support through the NS Leaders discord server of which August is an admin (which is frequented by hundreds of people, so elaborating on which founders it helped is impractical), although I admit it could of course be clearer.

It's a joke, lol. I'm just deliberately misinterpreting it and saying that pieces of paper/pixels can't move.

This seems incorrect, as it does not "fluff the same clause": it mentions Union of the Fascist Nations, then Viertes Reich, and then US Military, and moreover is not simply a laundry list as it does mention some context as to why those operations happened. The only vague thing I could see is "Participated in the defense and liberation of multiple regions". I believe other commendations and condemnations have also mentioned certain organizations or nations' roles in leading operations in which they were not the sole military, so the argument that they "cannot be solely attributed to the AA" doesn't hold.

Hmm...maybe your latter point holds. Alright, I'll edit.

Nothing here is even remotely convincing.

Oh no. How terrible.

Will you be pursuing a replacement?

Dunno. Haven't figured it out yet.

Meh. This feels a little elitist. But regardless, isn’t exactly a strong clause.

Is having the Delegate of your region have 11 endorsements once commendable? I wouldn't say so...plus, I wouldn't think recruiting was as bad back then.

[*]SC#228 includes a clause on how Ridgefield achieved 200 nations when at the time the world contained 60,000; currently, this would translate to 750 nations. 28 regions are at this level, including 19 non-feeders/non-sinkers, and 13 non-puppet regions. Furthermore, comparing region size to world size says nothing about the accomplishments of the aforementioned region.

I would argue that comparing to world size adds important context to the size of the regions that august constructed. Now, whether or not the original resolution specifies the degree to which August’s actions contributed to the region’s growth is different, and would be a more valid concern.

Hmm...sure it adds context to size, but size doesn't matter I'm more focused on commendable actions. Although maybe recruiting would be part of that...I agree with your latter point though.

[*]Half of SC#228 is unnecessary fluff;

Is this an exact statistic or?

I did count the non-space characters, yes. I got just over 25% for one of the things and like 27% for the other.

a quarter being an explanation of the themes of the AA, which isn’t commendable in the slightest, and another quarter being restatements of the fact that the 5 regions it mentions forms August’s Augustin Alliance (led by August).

Again, would you be interested in pursuing a replacement?

Again, I don't know

[*]Inexplicably, 2 of SC#228’s 14 bullet points use (differing) punctuation while the rest do not, a clear oversight.

This feels a little…nitpicky.

Sure.

[*]The “Acknowledging” clause of SC#288 is inarticulate and attempts to give credit to the nominee for the community development of the Augustin Alliance’s regions, something only achievable by community-wide efforts.

I mean…he built the regions didn’t he? I’m not saying that gives him automatic credit for everything in it but the unity between them would largely be due to the fact they’re in the Augustin Alliance, right?

Maybe he built the regions, but did he really build the communities? I'd say they united them, yeah, but surely it goes further than that.

[*]SC#228 claims to be “moved by the aid [August] has provided other founders in region building,” which is both impossible due to the resolution’s immobile nature and incredibly vague, as it doesn’t elaborate further on which founders it’s helped and how.

A fair point. It is rather vague.

Yay.

[*]SC#228 references the Joint Task Force, the military of the AA, and its commendable destruction of Union of the Fascist Nations. It then fluffs the same clause by mentioning its “participation in occupying a region, participation in the ‘defense and liberation of multiple regions,’ and aid in the destruction of a region,” all of which are rather commonplace and cannot be solely attributed to the AA and thus don’t belong in the commendation of its Founder. Moreover, it misspells a region it mentions a bullet point above.

This is a good point, and an actual oversight on the original.

Yay again!

[*]It notes how Ridgefield was once entirely composed of WA nations; both a feat accomplished in mere seconds and, for Ridgefield’s scale, accomplishable by virtually every Border Controls Officer. Additionally, it’s currently scraping by 40% WA nations, never mind 100%.[/list]

The fact that it’s not currently of such a size doesn’t mean it isn’t. As far as I’m aware it’s not been policy to repeal commendations of dead regions or inactive individuals just because they’re no longer active.

Maybe I'll remove that then.

I’d be in favor of this resolution in the event a replacement was also sent in. Aside from that, this doesn’t make a strong enough case on its own to warrant a repeal.

Alright.

This draft is not politically motivated.

Really? Despite the fact that Andy mentioned in his repeal thread a few hours ago that "if I had any interest in petty clawbacks, I would have gone for August's commendation" and that your co-author's regional military levied sanctions against the now-defunct Joint Task Force almost as soon as the URA's recommendation dispatch on Andy's Liberation was published?

Yup. I thought of the idea around 2 weeks ago while just reading through the commend, not because of anything else. And I don't have any ties to the AA or any vendetta against them.

I told Debussy this would happen three weeks ago. Opposed.

Oh well.

This draft is not politically motivated.

"Don't believe your lying eyes!" Come on Min, it's clear what this is.

A repeal about resolution quality? And please, don't call me Min. Mins or Minsk works though.

I have to say though, going after August's Commendation is a tall task. It's going to take some very convincing arguments to tear down the commend-worthiness of August's in-game accomplishments, and I'm... not sure you've managed that here.

Alright.

Commend August is not a very well written resolution (sorry jinkies). It focuses a lot on irrelevant details instead of commendable bits.

Alright.

That said, "this is not political" is complete cap and there’s no point trying to hide it. At the very least, you’re banking on those still on the August hate train to lend some votes in favour. I actually recommend waiting until everyone forgets about hating August to propose this, so other people don’t see this as political as they are now

It is not. I'm not "banking on August haters". The only reason I thought of this idea was that I was looking at August's nation and read through its commend, naturally. I don't care to spite August. That's why I stated August was commendable in the proposal.

Commend August is not a very well written resolution (sorry jinkies). It focuses a lot on irrelevant details instead of commendable bits.

That said, "this is not political" is complete cap and there’s no point trying to hide it. At the very least, you’re banking on those still on the August hate train to lend some votes in favour. I actually recommend waiting until everyone forgets about hating August to propose this, so other people don’t see this as political as they are now

I would have at least waited for the accusation to come in myself.

I find this very funny, even if it isn't politically motivated.

Okay?

[RiderSyl]

And please, don't call me Min. Mins or Minsk works though.

Sorry. I've edited my reply.

[Outer Sparta]

Does not make good repeal points and it's full of filler. It seems politically motivated given you made a rather bold disclaimer.

[Hulldom]

Does not make good repeal points and it's full of filler. It seems politically motivated given you made a rather bold disclaimer.

My "this isn't politically motivated" shirt is answering a lot of questions already answered by my shirt.

But I concur with others in this thread: this repeal effort is honestly not good at all, it's a lot of fluff and filler that doesn't lend any credence to your statement.

Further, I agree, I think this does deserve a replacement (regardless of how I would personally vote).

[Great Algerstonia]

Opposed due to bringing back old drama nonsense. Also doesn't have much non-filler contents or reasons to repeal, really.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I'd love to vote for this because August doesn't deserve a commendation, especially after recent events, but unfortunately:

1. The repeal proposal is full of fluff and doesn't really get around to making a compelling argument for repeal.
2. The author is frankly being disingenuous that this isn't politically motivated; even if the authorship isn't, the timing of trying to pass it is.
3. Against due to author.

Quebec, you can do better than this and I'm certain the proposal would be better if you'd authored it yourself.

[Great Algerstonia]

especially after recent events

Oh for crying out loud, stop mixing up in-character and out-of-character. OOC holds no relevancy in August's original commendation and thus should have no relevancy here

[Honeydewistania]

especially after recent events

Oh for crying out loud, stop mixing up in-character and out-of-character. OOC holds no relevancy in August's original commendation and thus should have no relevancy here

jesse what the fuck are you talking about

[RiderSyl]

especially after recent events

Oh for crying out loud, stop mixing up in-character and out-of-character. OOC holds no relevancy in August's original commendation and thus should have no relevancy here

Don't mind me, just planting this red flag next to you.

[Great Algerstonia]

Oh for crying out loud, stop mixing up in-character and out-of-character. OOC holds no relevancy in August's original commendation and thus should have no relevancy here

Don't mind me, just planting this red flag next to you.

I'm no communist, tyvm

[RiderSyl]

Don't mind me, just planting this red flag next to you.

I'm no communist, tyvm

Oh, sorry. Next time I'll make you buy it.

[Quebecshire]

I'd love to vote for this because August doesn't deserve a commendation, especially after recent events, but unfortunately:

1. The repeal proposal is full of fluff and doesn't really get around to making a compelling argument for repeal.
2. The author is frankly being disingenuous that this isn't politically motivated; even if the authorship isn't, the timing of trying to pass it is.
3. Against due to author.

Quebec, you can do better than this and I'm certain the proposal would be better if you'd authored it yourself.

I'm sorry to hear that you're opposed, especially that you're opposed due to Minskiev's authorship. While I provided some commentary and formatting fixes, he has done most of this resolution's points and writing. I would not be interested in being the primary author on this for two reasons. Chiefly, I have other projects I am working on, secondly, I am obviously much closer to recent August related controversies. I do believe the commendation is lackluster and if it is going to be replaced, it should be replaced with a better one (though I personally would not be the one to draft that for reasons which should be obvious).

Honestly, the resolution would probably be seen as less politically motivated if I was the one not involved, rather than the other way around, as he was farther from any controversies. As is obvious, current feedback is not very positive. Hopefully we can improve the draft more based on feedback, but if not, such is the way of the SC, and it will either be tabled or abandoned. I have no intentions of losing sleep over this one.

[Flanderlion]

I don't like August's IC stances, think his bot is spyware and especially dislike N Day. Despite all this, he deserves a commend, if not multiple for his other actions onsite, primarily for region building.

The draft, as others said, is from players who can't cope with the fact that August doesn't like them. No one is forced to like others.

[Quebecshire]

The draft, as others said, is from players who can't cope with the fact that August doesn't like them. No one is forced to like others.

That’s certainly an interesting spin. Im not even sure that’s what others said. Regardless, I’ve openly said it’s something I would expect for someone to try to replace it with a superior version if this passed.

[Minskiev]

I don't like August's IC stances, think his bot is spyware and especially dislike N Day. Despite all this, he deserves a commend, if not multiple for his other actions onsite, primarily for region building.

The draft, as others said, is from players who can't cope with the fact that August doesn't like them. No one is forced to like others.

Oh my god. I have nothing to do with August. I just think his commend is shit.