Repeal Condemn Omigodtheykilledkenny

[Parti Ouvrier]

BELIEVING: That there is no evidence of Omigodtheykilledkeeny's disregard for the environment and that this nation has an excellent record on human rights.

FURTHER BELIEVING: That the appointed Ambassador was not a terrorist and based on the current politics of fear which is being manipulated in the WA, and that these are no grounds to ban 'creative solutions' used by this nation. And that this nation has a right to defy the risk averse culture and emotional blackmail entailed in the WA conventions on terrorism.

HEREBY: Repeals Condemn Omigodtheykilledkenny

[Unibot II]

BELIEVING: That there is no evidence of Omigodtheykilledkeeny's disregard for the environment and that this nation has an excellent record on human rights.

FURTHER BELIEVING: That the appointed Ambassador was not a terrorist and based on the current politics of fear which is being manipulated in the WA, and that these are no grounds to ban 'creative solutions' used by this nation. And that this nation has a right to defy the risk averse culture and emotional blackmail entailed in the WA conventions on terrorism.

HEREBY: Repeals Condemn Omigodtheykilledkenny

Bold lies, ambassador.

[Parti Ouvrier]

BELIEVING: That there is no evidence of Omigodtheykilledkeeny's disregard for the environment and that this nation has an excellent record on human rights.

FURTHER BELIEVING: That the appointed Ambassador was not a terrorist and based on the current politics of fear which is being manipulated in the WA, and that these are no grounds to ban 'creative solutions' used by this nation. And that this nation has a right to defy the risk averse culture and emotional blackmail entailed in the WA conventions on terrorism.

HEREBY: Repeals Condemn Omigodtheykilledkenny

Bold lies, ambassador.

Please elaborate. What aspect of this particular forum are 'bold lies', then we can address them. But for now, you post is next to useless.

[Unibot II]

Please elaborate. What aspect of this particular forum are 'bold lies', then we can address them. But for now, you post is next to useless.

Well the thing is this... all this repeal is.. is just a series of reversed assertions, without any real propositions to establish an argument.

Kenny continually abused the environment. vs. Kenny did not continually abuse the environment.
Kenny hired a known terrorist as an ambassador. vs. Kenny did not hire a known terrorist as an ambassador.
Kenny's CSA was condemnable. vs. Kenny's CSA was not condemnable.

[Jasarite]

Please elaborate. What aspect of this particular forum are 'bold lies', then we can address them. But for now, you post is next to useless.

Well the thing is this... all this repeal is.. is just a series of reversed assertions, without any real propositions to establish an argument.

Kenny continually abused the environment. vs. Kenny did not continually abuse the environment.
Kenny hired a known terrorist as an ambassador. vs. Kenny did not hire a known terrorist as an ambassador.
Kenny's CSA was condemnable. vs. Kenny's CSA was not condemnable.

I agree. Do you have any proof Kenny did not do these things?

[Sedgistan]

A relevant ruling for those involved here to consider:

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.

[Parti Ouvrier]

A relevant ruling for those involved here to consider:

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.

This just opens ourselves up to conspiracy theory here, as Kenny's so-called wrong doings can neither be proved nor disproved. And mostly because the way this was written just causes, mistrust and suspicion of each other.
But because you're a nice, open and reasonable moderator, I'll quietly drop this.

[Sedgistan]

I wasn't saying it was illegal, just pointing it out as something that needed to be considered.

[Parti Ouvrier]

I wasn't saying it was illegal, just pointing it out as something that needed to be considered.

I actually read on another post somewhere that Omigodtheykilledkenny enjoys having his Condemned sticky. I've decided that who am I to try and deprive him of his little bit of joy in NSG life?

[Parti Ouvrier]

kenny could be commended as well.

[Krioval]

Has anybody actually discussed the issue with Kenny? I'm fairly certain that he wouldn't want a commendation, though I haven't independently confirmed this. I am unsure of whether he feels strongly on the issue of the commendation, though I haven't seen any evidence that he likes it.

[The Hand of Thrawnn]

Has anybody actually discussed the issue with Kenny? I'm fairly certain that he wouldn't want a commendation, though I haven't independently confirmed this. I am unsure of whether he feels strongly on the issue of the commendation, though I haven't seen any evidence that he likes it.

Probably the first time we're bringing up whether someone actually wants a Condemn...

[Mousebumples]

Has anybody actually discussed the issue with Kenny? I'm fairly certain that he wouldn't want a commendation, though I haven't independently confirmed this. I am unsure of whether he feels strongly on the issue of the commendation, though I haven't seen any evidence that he likes it.

Probably the first time we're bringing up whether someone actually wants a Condemn...

Try again. Krioval was responding to PO's comment re: giving Kenny a Commendation to go with the Condemnation he already has.

I'm neutral on the subject for now. I don't know that Kenny would especially WANT to be commended. And, if not, I'd just as soon not give him such a "badge" to add to his profile page.

I could possibly support a repeal of the condemnation, but the current text is unpersuasive as it lacks detail.

[Unibot II]

I am unsure of whether he feels strongly on the issue of the condemnation, though I haven't seen any evidence that he likes it.

I haven't written a C&C without nominee approval (I was close to it with CD though), so ....

[Mousebumples]

I am unsure of whether he feels strongly on the issue of the condemnation, though I haven't seen any evidence that he likes it.

I haven't written a C&C without nominee approval (I was close to it with CD though), so ....

I believe Krioval was responding to the post directly above his, in which PO suggested perhaps commending Kenny instead. Therefore, your "correction" of his post is unnecessary, as I believe he said what he intended. He was not talking about your condemnation of Kenny in that post in question.

[Ardchoille]

That post of mine that keeps being quoted refers to the "Yes he did/No he did-ern't" style of argument: assertion unsupported by facts.

If a repeal argument went "Though condemned for continually abusing the environment, Omigodtheykilledkenny has in fact devoted half their national budget to restoration of desertified areas and recently began providing a $500 Solar Power Installation tax rebate to householders", that would be fine.

In the GA a repeal is removing a law, so it has to show why it's bad law by referring strictly to the existing text. You can't introduce new legislation in a GA repeal. In the SC a repeal of a C&C is changing an opinion, so it has to show why the opinion has changed. That can mean new factors have influenced the change.

What a C&C repeal does, essentially, is say: the WA once held this opinion of @@nation@@. It no longer holds this opinion, because of [reasons that undermine original opinion], and therefore repeals it.