[draft] Condemn Durkadurkiranistan II again

[Mahaj WA Seat]

Well that was my point. Condemning a nation, an entire nation, for painting a forum in the tangible sense pink?

If Canada screwed up the last G8 summit by putting all the world leaders in an igloo ( ), and one of the world leaders got hypothermia ..Canada would probably have recieved some serious backlash from the international community because our nation is held accountable for our representatives and their decisions.

So the same logic can't be held here?

[Todd McCloud]

Well that was my point. Condemning a nation, an entire nation, for painting a forum in the tangible sense pink?

If Canada screwed up the last G8 summit by putting all the world leaders in an igloo ( ), and one of the world leaders got hypothermia ..Canada would probably have recieved some serious backlash from the international community because our nation is held accountable for our representatives and their decisions.

One would think that if such a scenario ever would arise there would be more to deal with that condemnations.

I don't really see a difference here, to be honest. Condemning a nation for believing in something makes as much sense for condemning a nation for, say, painting a forum. To "paint" (no pun intended) a less silly example, Germany could've been condemned for practicing Nazism. Nazism is a belief. Does that mean everyone in Germany went along with it? Well, no. It just means, as you said, those in power who practiced it put the whole country to blame for it. No one really says "the Nazis started WWII"; instead, people say "Germany started WWII". I don't understand why the same logic does not apply here, especially since a belief is more believable to me than having six billion or so people painting a public hall.

[Raxar]

to be one of the most duplicitous and underhand nations in the world

Just an edit here, underhanded instead of underhand, other wise looks pretty good, I'd vote for it if it got enough approvals.

[Imperium Neo Roma]

This will never pass.

.Winning.

[Todd McCloud]

This will never pass.

.Winning.

Move over Charlie Sheen!!

[Mahaj WA Seat]

This will never pass.

Move over Charlie Sheen!!

[sigh] Maybe... if you ask me politely, i'll move.

[Todd McCloud]

Move over Charlie Sheen!!

[sigh] Maybe... if you ask me politely, i'll move.

Nah, you can stay. The SC needs a winner

[Mahaj WA Seat]

[sigh] Maybe... if you ask me politely, i'll move.

Nah, you can stay. The SC needs a winner

I thought so.

[Sedgistan]

I'm afraid that condemning an entire nation for delusionally believing that they're just playing a game called NationStates is not a viable way of dodging Rule 4.

Aha, but on that same token, can a nation really be condemned for making an out-of-character regional forum pink?

The two really aren't comparable. One might be a silly reason for condemning a nation, but the other is an attempt to completely invalidate Rule 4 by claiming that an entire nation can be convinced that it's actually playing an online game.

[Todd McCloud]

Aha, but on that same token, can a nation really be condemned for making an out-of-character regional forum pink?

The two really aren't comparable. One might be a silly reason for condemning a nation, but the other is an attempt to completely invalidate Rule 4 by claiming that an entire nation can be convinced that it's actually playing an online game.

Who says a nation can't be?

If billions of people can paint a forum, I think a nation could induce a HAARP-like device to get people to believe they are playing a game, perhaps even matrix-style where they think they're in some kind of system that is more or less synthetic.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

Aha, but on that same token, can a nation really be condemned for making an out-of-character regional forum pink?

The two really aren't comparable. One might be a silly reason for condemning a nation, but the other is an attempt to completely invalidate Rule 4 by claiming that an entire nation can be convinced that it's actually playing an online game.

The silly reason says that an entire nation painted a forum pink. The other is saying the entire nation is under delusions.

its really similar.

[Sedgistan]

The silly reason says that an entire nation painted a forum pink. The other is saying the entire nation is under delusions.

its really similar.

No it really isn't, and repeating the same arguments made before won't change the situation, because I've already addressed them. The ruling has been made - claiming 'delusions' is not a valid way of dodging Rule 4.

[Todd McCloud]

The silly reason says that an entire nation painted a forum pink. The other is saying the entire nation is under delusions.

its really similar.

No it really isn't, and repeating the same arguments made before won't change the situation, because I've already addressed them. The ruling has been made - claiming 'delusions' is not a valid way of dodging Rule 4.

I think the problem here is one needs to think of it with a roleplay-centered mind. For instance, in TEP we have a nation known as The Pax, which has a hivemind complex. I'm not an expert on it, but it basically means people tend to think however the controller of the hivemind wants them to think. Who's to say this is not the same scenario here? The only thing I could think of being problematic would be the fact that JAL did not roleplay this out... but then again, the same could be argued for the proposal currently at vote, that was cleared of any violations basically under the same pretenses.

[Flemingovia]

Excuse me? I am not invalidating rule 4. I am validating it by accepting that the existence of Montana is a delusion. However, since this seems to be the problem:

The other is saying the entire nation is under delusions.

I will rewrite to remove the implication that the whole region is delusional.

[Flemingovia]

Rewritten to imply that only the head of state of durkadurkiranistan II is delusional, but that the nation stands condemned because they support him in his delusion.

A parallel might be that if the president of France went loopy and decided to launch a nuclear strike against Luxembourg, the nation of France would be condemned if they followed out his orders, whether they themselves were crazy or not.

Happy?

[Flemingovia]

This will never pass.

.Winning.

why not? Durkadurkiranistan II is teh ebil. This is undisputed. Please note, nobody has said in this thread "Durk does not deserve a condemnation or three."

[Sedgistan]

Rewritten to imply that only the head of state of durkadurkiranistan II is delusional, but that the nation stands condemned because they support him in his delusion.

I still see real-world references, and it really doesn't matter how you dress them up - they're illegal.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Rewritten to imply that only the head of state of durkadurkiranistan II is delusional, but that the nation stands condemned because they support him in his delusion.

I still see real-world references, and it really doesn't matter how you dress them up - they're illegal.

Has the hivemind made a judgment upon this resolution?

[Flemingovia]

I see no real world references. I see references to the delusion in the mind of a nation's leader.

But you are the mod. I will think again.

[Flemingovia]

proposal=]The security council

Recalling that the Nation of Durkadurkiranistan II has proved to be one of the most duplicitous and underhand nations in the world – as evidenced by lies and blandishments during their rogue delegacy in The North Pacific in 2009.

Further recalling that when it became clear that the outrage of the nations of that region would bring this delegacy to a premature end this nation violently thrust over 600 innocent nations out of that region and into The Rejected Realms.

Noting that this action was condemned in SC#33.

HOWEVER, Noting since the passing of that Resolution the failure of Durkadurkiranistan II to show any remorse for these actions, nor to make any atonement for them.

Further Noting that since the passing of SC#33 the nation of Durkadurkiranistan II has continued to support a head of state who is clearly delusional and paranoid, for reasons that may not be mentioned here, but which can be discovered by the discerning nation which wishes to hunt a bit outside of the halls of this chamber.

Hereby condemns Durkadurkiranistan II. [/proposal]

[Flemingovia]

Rule 4 compliant, I believe?

[Sedgistan]

Unfortunately, you're now running into problems with Rule 2.b:

(b) Don't duplicate. Nations that have already been Commended/Condemned for a certain set of actions can't be Commended or Condemned again for that set of actions. Equally, a region cannot be liberated more than once.

Of your proposal, the 'Recalling' and 'Further Recalling' clauses simply repeat what has been covered in the previous condemnation. The 'However, Noting' clause adds that no remorse has been shown for those actions, and the 'Further Noting' makes vague reference to a delusional head of state, with no further information provided on this.

Not a ruling here, but my advice would be to add in some more reasons to condemn the nominee, or you may fall foul of Rule 2.b.

[Flemingovia]

Hold on, this is a little late in the proceedings to be introducing a new tricksy rule to me!!!!

So basically, if I keep the Montana clause, I run foul of Rule 4. If I do not I run foul of rule 2?

Should I change my name to Crazy Girl in order to get a better chance of getting a marginally-legal proposal past the mods?

It''s not what you know...

[Sedgistan]

So basically, if I keep the Montana clause, I run foul of Rule 4. If I do not I run foul of rule 2?

I didn't make a ruling on the application of Rule 2 - I would have to talk that over with the other mods first. I was giving you advice about re-writing the proposal to avoid us having to do that. You have a third option here - add more (rule 4 compliant) content to the proposal, and it should be fine.

[Todd McCloud]

Unfortunately, you're now running into problems with Rule 2.b:

(b) Don't duplicate. Nations that have already been Commended/Condemned for a certain set of actions can't be Commended or Condemned again for that set of actions. Equally, a region cannot be liberated more than once.

Of your proposal, the 'Recalling' and 'Further Recalling' clauses simply repeat what has been covered in the previous condemnation. The 'However, Noting' clause adds that no remorse has been shown for those actions, and the 'Further Noting' makes vague reference to a delusional head of state, with no further information provided on this.

Not a ruling here, but my advice would be to add in some more reasons to condemn the nominee, or you may fall foul of Rule 2.b.

You know, I wonder...

In all honesty, did you look at the fun condemnation against you (that had recently passed) with such a discriminate eye? You don't have to answer that. As a matter of fact, it might be best if you did not. It just seems to me that whatever Flem tries to write up here violates some particular rule in the SC. I really don't think his condemnation violates rule IV, personally, but that's up to opinion of course.

I really couldn't care less if this was allowed to be proposed or not, but dude, don't you remember how very frustrating it was to deal with this rule IV that seemed to be the vast gray area only one, now two people are privileged to make a judgment call on? So frustrating it caused many people to leave this body? This is not an argument about Rule IV; it's pretty clear it is here to stay. Instead, maybe we're taking this approach the wrong way. Since you are now the final say, how would you write this condemnation out?