[DRAFT] Repeal "Commend Ransium"

[The North Polish Union]

The Security Council,

BELIEVING that Ransium has contributed greatly to many facets of the international community and that S.C. Res. No. 236 adequately sums up many of their accomplishments;

OBSERVING that when passing the recent S.C. Res. No. 425, the Security Council declared that "SC#236 mentions Souls’ involvement and leadership in numerous raiding organizations, though contending that their career in the multiverse is primarily viewed through their role in The Black Hawks specifically,"

CONFUSED that this assertion was made despite the fact that "Commend Ransium" makes no mention of "Souls" or "The Black Hawks", nor are any of the other claims made about S.C. No. 236 in S.C. No. 425 borne out by "Commend Ransium";

SADDENED that since S. C. Res. No. 425 has been permanently enshrined in the SC's records there is no way to rectify this confusion short of the withdrawal and reinstatement of Ransium's commendation;

CONVINCED that the Security Council should not permit such confusing claims to remain unchecked in its corpus;

HOPING that a future resolution will again commend Ransium while making clear their alleged connections to "Souls" and "The Black Hawks";

HEREBY repeals S.C. Res. No. 236 "Commend Ransium"

[The North Polish Union]

-reserved-

[The Ice States]

No.

[Hulldom]

Well, uh, this is certainly a choice.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Against. And you have not addressed the contents of “Commend Ransium” which would make your draft illegal.

[Quebecshire]

Against. And you have not addressed the contents of “Commend Ransium” which would make your draft illegal.

Sweet irony

[The North Polish Union]

Against. And you have not addressed the contents of “Commend Ransium” which would make your draft illegal.

The SC has irrevocably proclaimed that "Commend Ransium" deals with "Souls’ involvement and leadership in numerous raiding organizations, though contending that their career in the multiverse is primarily viewed through their role in The Black Hawks specifically,"

So since my draft focuses primarily on that, it does address the contents of “Commend Ransium”

[Heidgaudr]

Against. And you have not addressed the contents of “Commend Ransium” which would make your draft illegal.

The SC has irrevocably proclaimed that "Commend Ransium" deals with "Souls’ involvement and leadership in numerous raiding organizations, though contending that their career in the multiverse is primarily viewed through their role in The Black Hawks specifically,"

So since my draft focuses primarily on that, it does address the contents of “Commend Ransium”

That's not how it works.

[Lenlyvit]

Against. And you have not addressed the contents of “Commend Ransium” which would make your draft illegal.

The SC has irrevocably proclaimed that "Commend Ransium" deals with "Souls’ involvement and leadership in numerous raiding organizations, though contending that their career in the multiverse is primarily viewed through their role in The Black Hawks specifically,"

So since my draft focuses primarily on that, it does address the contents of “Commend Ransium”

Um, yeah that's not how it works. You need to adequately address the contents of the whole resolution, not just a tiny section of it. I'm firmly opposed to repealing Ransium's commendation, and I know the majority of the SC will be as well.

Edit: And looking more thoroughly, you haven't addressed the contents of Commend Ransium whatsoever. Have you read the SC rules? It might be a good idea to peruse them..

[Outer Sparta]

Rather bold to repeal Ransium's commend, but I'll have to say no.

[Comfed]

Nice attempt at mentioning "Souls" and "The Black Hawks" as many times as you possibly can in this bizarre text.

[RiderSyl]

I understand what you're mocking, NPU. I respect that you're mocking it. I just wish the way you were doing it was funnier than this.

[Astrobolt]

Are we still doing the minor spelling mistake bit?

[Wrapper]

Add a mention of how terrible Ransium is for writing my condemnation and I just might consider supporting this.

[Onionist Randosia]

So... you are repealing a deserved commendation on the basis of a typo in another (and completely unrelated) resolution?

Nah.

[The North Polish Union]

The SC has irrevocably proclaimed that "Commend Ransium" deals with "Souls’ involvement and leadership in numerous raiding organizations, though contending that their career in the multiverse is primarily viewed through their role in The Black Hawks specifically,"

So since my draft focuses primarily on that, it does address the contents of “Commend Ransium”

Um, yeah that's not how it works. You need to adequately address the contents of the whole resolution, not just a tiny section of it. I'm firmly opposed to repealing Ransium's commendation, and I know the majority of the SC will be as well.

Edit: And looking more thoroughly, you haven't addressed the contents of Commend Ransium whatsoever. Have you read the SC rules? It might be a good idea to peruse them..

Interestingly, when "Commend Ever-Wandering Souls" was repealed a number of individuals made the argument that repeals need not focus so heavily on the target, citing the repeals of "Commend Solorni" and "Condemn Jakker" in support of this. This makes an interesting philosophical distinction between those such as yourself who apparently believe a strong focus on the target is essential for legality, and those that don't.

In any case, I believe this draft (although it can be improved) does address the resolution its targeting, as I'll explain below, so that should be a non-issue.

I understand what you're mocking, NPU. I respect that you're mocking it. I just wish the way you were doing it was funnier than this.

I wasn't really going for mocking when I wrote this. Its more written because of a concern over what 425 says.

When the legality of what would become 425 was challenged at-vote Sedge ruled it legal because in spite of the presence of the clause about "Commend Ransium" the rest of the resolution met the standard of legality. I had (and have) no desire to challenge that ruling itself, but the practical effect of it is that the SC has now authoritatively determined in an un-amendable and un-repealable resolution, that "Commend Ransium" makes certain claims about the nature of Souls' participation in raiding. This clear statement is confusing when one reads 236's text, which seems to make no claims at all about Souls' raiding; unfortunately, since 425 can't be repealed the only recourse is to repeal 236 and correct this confusion. It is unfortunate that Ransium's commendation is the one caught up in this, but that is what happened.

Since "Proposals must be written from the perspective of the World Assembly or Security Council, not that of your nation, region or another organisation" (Rule 1a), this draft more than adequately "address[es] the contents of the resolution it is repealing" (Rule 1b). Although from the perspective of the average nation, region or another organisation the draft has almost nothing to do with the target, the SC's perspective is now different and so those other perspectives are irrelevant. Since voting ended for 425, the SC's perspective has officially been that "SC#236 mentions Souls’ involvement and leadership in numerous raiding organizations," etc. My draft seeks to bring the SC's perspective back into line with that of the ordinary reader.

But yes I agree I could be funnier

Add a mention of how terrible Ransium is for writing my condemnation and I just might consider supporting this.

I'll see what I can do

[Tim-Opolis]

Even for your level of branding, NPU, this is so unspeakably mid.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

You’re obviously convinced that you have done enough to make this draft legal, despite a number of disagreements with that position. I suggest you ask for a legality check from Moderation before submitting, just to settle the argument.

[Sedgistan]

To the surprise of absolutely no-one, I can confirm the draft violates Rule 1b.

[The North Polish Union]

Although I can't say I'm surprised by the legality ruling, I am a more than a little concerned by it.

If there was no Rule 1a, I agree that this draft would be unambiguously illegal. However, since 1a exists and resolutions must be written from the WA's/SC's perspective, I continue to sincerely believe that this draft does meet the requirements of Rule 1b. That is, it addresses the contents of 236 from the WA's perspective; a perspective which is in this case decidedly not the perspective any other nation, region, or organization would have.

To rule this draft illegal under 1b means that the WA does not view its pronouncements in passed resolutions as authoritative for the duration of those resolutions' presence in the WA's corpus. So in this case, when the WA makes pronouncements about 236 in 425 that doesn't mean anything because the WA apparently doesn't believe its resolutions have any sort of importance to them.

The WA can't have it both ways; demanding that authors draft their resolutions from the WA's perspective and then declining to view their own resolutions from that perspective. I don't believe the truly disastrous consequences of such an attitude on the WA's part need any further fleshing out.

[Sedgistan]

You're being ridiculous. The rule is very simple as it applies to repeals: "If your proposal is a Repeal it must address the contents of the resolution it is repealing." The contents of other resolutions are utterly irrelevant to complying with this rule.

[Quebecshire]

There are two potential interpretations of the error found in SC425.

Interpretation 1: The error is clearly a typo, and it does not meaningfully impact the proposal. The proposal at-large is understood all the same, as a proposal's clauses are read as a group, not as isolated statutes devoid of context. Given that SC326 is referenced three times (and the SC236 typo only exists once), it is clear which resolution is actually being referred to. Most importantly, the operative clause(s), both the one inserted mechanically at the beginning and the one a the end of the resolution, reference the correct resolution. In all mechanically senses, the SC is addressing SC326, and as human beings are typically capable of recognizing nuance, it is pretty clear what was being asserted throughout SC425.

Interpretation 2: Isolating the "Recognizing" clause from the rest of SC425 is reasonable, and it makes an assertion about SC236 despite no mechanical or operative indication of SC236's involvement in SC425. Therefore, the SC was making a claim about SC236 through the passage of SC425 (note that in this interpretation, making a claim about SC236 does not physically change SC236, or impact it in a mechanical or operative form).

I would contend that most reasonable people would align with interpretation 1. However, regardless of which interpretation you wish to adhere to, SC236 remains tangibly unimpacted. Under your (foolish, if not bad faith) interpretation, the SC may have made a claim about it, but that claim does not actually impose itself upon or alter SC236 beyond simply being stated. So, to repeal SC236, you'd actually have to address things actually in SC236, not merely things which you believe to reference it.

[The North Polish Union]

You're being ridiculous. The rule is very simple as it applies to repeals: "If your proposal is a Repeal it must address the contents of the resolution it is repealing." The contents of other resolutions are utterly irrelevant to complying with this rule.

With all due respect, the only thing ridiculous here is the idea that the WA can legislate that a passed resolution makes certain claims and less than a month later declare illegal a proposal that objects to those same claims.

The draft does "address the contents of the resolution it is repealing" because the WA has authoritatively stated that the contents of 236 make certain claims about Souls and TBH. The fact that you and I are unable to reconcile that with what 236 appears to say makes no difference. The WA has spoken, and either it means what it says when it passes resolutions or it doesn't, which would essentially lead to each individual delegation interpreting any resolution in the way that makes them the happiest.

There are two potential interpretations of the error found in SC425.

Interpretation 1: The error is clearly a typo, and it does not meaningfully impact the proposal. The proposal at-large is understood all the same, as a proposal's clauses are read as a group, not as isolated statutes devoid of context. Given that SC326 is referenced three times (and the SC236 typo only exists once), it is clear which resolution is actually being referred to. Most importantly, the operative clause(s), both the one inserted mechanically at the beginning and the one a the end of the resolution, reference the correct resolution. In all mechanically senses, the SC is addressing SC326, and as human beings are typically capable of recognizing nuance, it is pretty clear what was being asserted throughout SC425.

Interpretation 2: Isolating the "Recognizing" clause from the rest of SC425 is reasonable, and it makes an assertion about SC236 despite no mechanical or operative indication of SC236's involvement in SC425. Therefore, the SC was making a claim about SC236 through the passage of SC425 (note that in this interpretation, making a claim about SC236 does not physically change SC236, or impact it in a mechanical or operative form).

I agree with Interpretation 1 as far as relates to the legality of 425. Sedge ruled that legal on the grounds that even if the clause referencing 236 was discarded the resolution still met the requirements of rule 1b. I have no issue with this: others debating the legality of 425 correctly pointed out that past repeals have at times had clauses that don't address the target alongside clauses that do.

But, when it comes to 425's impact on 236, I agree more closely with Interpretation 2. The resolution says what it says, intentionally or not. If a hypothetical proposal to allow nuclear weapons accidentally omitted the word 'not' in a clause intended to be something like "possession of nuclear weapons shall not be illegal", making it read instead "possession of nuclear weapons shall be illegal", the effect would be to prohibit the possession of nuclear weapons; this would still be the case even if the intent of the resolution was not to prohibit nuclear weapons and the omission was unintentional.

When the SC passed 425, it did change something about 236 as I have already stated. Namely, it changed the WA's perspective on 236 from a resolution that had nothing to do with Souls or TBH to a resolution that did. So when attempting to repeal 236 this claim is fair game: either the WA must accept that the repeal addresses the target because it does so from an interpretation that WA has already accepted, even if that interpretation is not the most natural reading of the target; or it must accept that when it passes resolutions it is just throwing words into the void and the actual verbiage used in its resolutions has no actual consequences, if it takes this position this draft probably ought to be legal anyways since such an attitude would appear to negate any philosophical basis for any rules regulating resolutions to exist at all.

I would contend that most reasonable people would align with interpretation 1. However, regardless of which interpretation you wish to adhere to, SC236 remains tangibly unimpacted. Under your (foolish, if not bad faith) interpretation, the SC may have made a claim about it, but that claim does not actually impose itself upon or alter SC236 beyond simply being stated. So, to repeal SC236, you'd actually have to address things actually in SC236, not merely things which you believe to reference it.

Reasonable people ought to align with Interpretation 2 as relates to this draft for the reasons I explained above. When the WA passes legislation, particularly legislation that makes claims about other legislation, it does have a tangible impact. So when 425 makes claims about 236 the truth of those claims is meaningful, as is their effect on 236.

[Wrapper]

Reasonable people ought to align with Interpretation 2 as relates to this draft for the reasons I explained above.

No, reasonable people will understand that it's just a typo and not overreact like some fifth-grade Grammar Nazi.

Signed,

A former fifth- (and sixth-, and seventh-, and eighth-) grade Grammar Nazi who'd irritated more than a couple English teachers in the 1970s.

[Ransium]

Come on there are better reasons! I commended Drasnia and Drasnia then commended me it was clear quid pro quo! I condemned wrapper and Chan island and both nations actually contributed a lot, what up with that? I haven’t been active lately, do I still deserve it? I’m a mod and everyone hates the mods (surely this argument could be made obliquely enough to be legal, call my nation a bully who bosses around others or something). You can have your mockery and make this a half way decent repeal, don’t I at least deserve that?