NATION

PASSWORD

An Apology and some Questions about the Condemn Nazi Europe

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.
User avatar
TannerFrankLand
Envoy
 
Posts: 316
Founded: Jun 10, 2009
Ex-Nation

An Apology and some Questions about the Condemn Nazi Europe

Postby TannerFrankLand » Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:30 pm

The first part is an apology and an explanation of my actions… I won’t ask you to read it; I’m just putting it out there for the record. The topic is mainly the questions at the end.

My Apology:

I’m truly very sorry about … Everything.

I was, and am, a noob. When I wrote that god awful resolution, not unlike many other noobs, I had no idea what I was doing. The difference between me and every other noob, is that my target had members who had done very illegal things in the past (Not to say that the whole region, or even most of its members has, but a region of such … values is sure to attract … less mannered members. Plus, the rules disallows me to mention the real life actions of Nazis in the proposal, not for people to vote based off of them. So my noobish proposal not only met rapidly met quorum, it passed by a large majority. I was experienced enough to know how to keep my proposal as close to the edge, yet still within the rules as possible (Like not banning the Nazi Ideology {Ideological Ban Rule] and not actually mentioning anything in real life, just saying the ‘Nazi Ideology’ without mention of Hitler or Germany or anything like that). I still believe that horrid region deserves a condemnation, just not for the reasons I listed in the proposal.

I totally agree with the rules which the mods enacted after the passing of my proposal, banning condemnations or commendations based solely off of ideology (pretty much an extension of the Ideological Ban rule). And I’m sad that the repeal of my resolution failed, (which was a majority of the WA voting against the rule directly, resulting in the rule being removed).

Finally, as for the comments I made after the passing of my proposal… I cannot fully describe what made me say that stuff. I don’t want to try to make excuses, but to try to help people understand my actions I’ll say this… I was a brand new player only days old, thrust into the middle of one of the largest fights in the NS world I’ve seen. The days of the Nazi Europe debate were angry and violent days! I couldn’t go anywhere in NS without being ridiculed or praised by players for my resolution. By the end of the debate I did know that I had been wrong, and that I shouldn’t have condemned for Ideological reasons. And I also knew the reason I had made this horrid mistake was that I was a noob. But, I guess it was easier for me to claim I had other secret motives, and that this whole thing had been some form of devious plot; than it would have been for me to admit I was a noob, and that is why I made the mistake. In other words, I decided it was better to make myself out to be some cunning man on a mission, than an idiotic noob who didn’t truly understand the SC.

I hope you guys can forgive me, or at least accept my mistake and not hold it against me. I hope I will not be given me too much trouble when I try to make a comeback. I understand I’ve made mistakes in the past and I am admitting that now… But that doesn’t mean I can’t be a contributing member of this community in the future.

My Question:

I feel that the inactivity in C&C’s is because of the great flaws in the current SC resolutions. I think people are just downright annoyed at the SC for such awful resolutions. Mine is by far the most flawed. Thus leading to my question:

I did watch the repeal vote and discussion very closely (I was still hiding in my hole) and at the very end of that thread, comments were made which lead to another fight; a fight which was never resolved. It was centered around this comment. Is this true? And if it is, why can’t we do it?

{I don’t want you to think I’m unwilling to do the work to get this repealed, I’m not. If I thought it had a chance I’d author another repeal myself. But in the end, it might get a few more votes because I (author of the first resolution) wrote it, but it wouldn’t make a big enough difference to get it passed. (In my opinion)}
Last edited by TannerFrankLand on Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
WA Security Council:
SC #3 ~ Condemn Nazi Europe [SORRY!]
SC #12 ~ Commend Todd McCloud
SC #18 ~ Commend Sedgistan
SC #27 ~ Condemn Unknown
SC #36 ~ Liberate Eastern Europe
SC #51 ~ Commend Fudgetopia
SC #67 ~ Commend Naivetry
SC #71 ~ Repeal Condemn Unknown.
WA General Assembly:
GA #81 ~ Disaster Preparedness Act
GA #105 ~ Preparing For Disasters
GA #164 ~ Consular Rights
GA #278 ~ Repeal "Right to Privacy"
Security Council Fanatic
Delegate of St Abbaddon,
Member of the Council of State of Balder,
Former delegate of The South Pacific,
Topid

User avatar
TannerFrankLand
Envoy
 
Posts: 316
Founded: Jun 10, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby TannerFrankLand » Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:45 pm

Wrong forum. My bad (again :p ), I asked in Moderation for it to be moved.
WA Security Council:
SC #3 ~ Condemn Nazi Europe [SORRY!]
SC #12 ~ Commend Todd McCloud
SC #18 ~ Commend Sedgistan
SC #27 ~ Condemn Unknown
SC #36 ~ Liberate Eastern Europe
SC #51 ~ Commend Fudgetopia
SC #67 ~ Commend Naivetry
SC #71 ~ Repeal Condemn Unknown.
WA General Assembly:
GA #81 ~ Disaster Preparedness Act
GA #105 ~ Preparing For Disasters
GA #164 ~ Consular Rights
GA #278 ~ Repeal "Right to Privacy"
Security Council Fanatic
Delegate of St Abbaddon,
Member of the Council of State of Balder,
Former delegate of The South Pacific,
Topid

User avatar
LOL ANARCHY NUBZ
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1181
Founded: Dec 07, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby LOL ANARCHY NUBZ » Sun Sep 20, 2009 1:53 am

Don't worry, everyone makes mistakes :)

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5614
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:19 am

TannerFrankLand wrote:I did watch the repeal vote and discussion very closely (I was still hiding in my hole) and at the very end of that thread, comments were made which lead to another fight; a fight which was never resolved. It was centered around this comment. Is this true? And if it is, why can’t we do it?

[violet] has already been asked, and answered no. In short, the previous decision of the SC to keep the resolution will be honored. But this discussion is like weeks old, why in heck would you want to bring it up again? (Unless you want to start a forum fight for your own entertainment, that is? You're good at that.)

At any rate, seeing as you still choose to post with your troll-puppet and not your actual nation, I don't see why anyone should accept your supposed "apology" with any sincerity.
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
TannerFrankLand
Envoy
 
Posts: 316
Founded: Jun 10, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby TannerFrankLand » Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:57 am

I was hopinig you would choose not to post... And I do not want to start another fight because that ended badly for me the first time, so this is all I will say to you (to avoid a fight):

I would post as my main, if I had one, I already asserted I'm a noob.

And can I have a link to where Vi was asked? If this matter has already been settled, I'll ask for this topic to be locked myself (To prevent the fight I'm supposedly trying to cause).
WA Security Council:
SC #3 ~ Condemn Nazi Europe [SORRY!]
SC #12 ~ Commend Todd McCloud
SC #18 ~ Commend Sedgistan
SC #27 ~ Condemn Unknown
SC #36 ~ Liberate Eastern Europe
SC #51 ~ Commend Fudgetopia
SC #67 ~ Commend Naivetry
SC #71 ~ Repeal Condemn Unknown.
WA General Assembly:
GA #81 ~ Disaster Preparedness Act
GA #105 ~ Preparing For Disasters
GA #164 ~ Consular Rights
GA #278 ~ Repeal "Right to Privacy"
Security Council Fanatic
Delegate of St Abbaddon,
Member of the Council of State of Balder,
Former delegate of The South Pacific,
Topid

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5614
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:03 pm

TannerFrankLand wrote:I'm the author of Condemn NAZI EUROPE, if you didn't know.

I am ... err... was ... a member of a region that had ... err ... various disputes with the victim of this proposal. And now that I'm no longer connected to them ... I can oppose this resolution. I of course had ... other motives ... than the ones in that proposal, that's why it was so short, as I couldn't explain WHY I wanted them condemned... I know it’s horrible but that’s why I used a puppet to propose it. IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL, but also not exactly 'right'. Sorry.

Further, the regions which I was connected to, and my true identity will never be known, so don’t waste time asking.

YOU'RE A TROLL. And for some reason I keep feeding you! You can't be unhappy about that. I mean, it's what you want, isn't it?
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
Shahinesian States
Envoy
 
Posts: 246
Founded: Jul 10, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Shahinesian States » Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:08 pm

I FORGIVE YOU.
:hug: :hug: :hug: :hug:
Last edited by Shahinesian States on Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The Federation of Shahinesian States--United Under the Savior's Fists.

King Mikhaelas Schaven II, King of the Royal Federation as of September 24, 2009

King Eskender Schaven IV---1933-2009. Rest in Peace.

User avatar
TannerFrankLand
Envoy
 
Posts: 316
Founded: Jun 10, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby TannerFrankLand » Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:43 pm

W/e kenny, no point to argue.
Yes I said that.
No it's not true. (Not that you read my post as to why, nor will you anytime soon.)
I'm not bugging you, and your decision was made long ago. So why on earth would you choose to comment on my apology unless you are tryinig to cause a fight...

I guess I'm just going to believe you that [Violet] was asked this somewhere unknown... And so that answers my question...

TOPIC CLOSED.
WA Security Council:
SC #3 ~ Condemn Nazi Europe [SORRY!]
SC #12 ~ Commend Todd McCloud
SC #18 ~ Commend Sedgistan
SC #27 ~ Condemn Unknown
SC #36 ~ Liberate Eastern Europe
SC #51 ~ Commend Fudgetopia
SC #67 ~ Commend Naivetry
SC #71 ~ Repeal Condemn Unknown.
WA General Assembly:
GA #81 ~ Disaster Preparedness Act
GA #105 ~ Preparing For Disasters
GA #164 ~ Consular Rights
GA #278 ~ Repeal "Right to Privacy"
Security Council Fanatic
Delegate of St Abbaddon,
Member of the Council of State of Balder,
Former delegate of The South Pacific,
Topid

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ardchoille » Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:59 am

I asked, but [violet] felt that the SC should be given a chance to make -- and unmake -- its own decisions. If you want to repeal it, you will have to campaign hard enough to get it to quorum, then keep those votes and work harder to get it to pass.

I gather this is not as simple as it sounds for nations involved in Gameplay politics, since favours asked have to be balanced against favours received, alliances offended, and so on. But you need only 52 Delegate votes to make quorum. There are 865 Delegates. They're not all Gameplayers.

On the point of it being illegal because of the "ideological ban" rule: a condemnation is not the same thing as a ban. You can condemn an ideology without banning it.

My argument was that the SC should not be condemning solely on ideology, but on how the specific nation applies that ideology in NationStates. The SC rejected that argument fairly convincingly, and has continued to do so. I don't, personally, like the precedent: I think it breaks the fourth wall, by letting real-world circumstances be arguments in NS. But that's how the votes tumble.
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9003
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:09 pm

Ardchoille wrote:My argument was that the SC should not be condemning solely on ideology, but on how the specific nation applies that ideology in NationStates. The SC rejected that argument fairly convincingly, and has continued to do so. I don't, personally, like the precedent: I think it breaks the fourth wall, by letting real-world circumstances be arguments in NS. But that's how the votes tumble.

I'm really tired of Condemn NAZI EUROPE and the Security Council altogether, but reading this just kind of... clicked something in my mind. Can a vote really be construed to reject your ideology rule? A very small fraction of the WA voting body know the rules, or even that rules exist, and an even smaller fraction participates (participated?) in the debates surrounding SC rules. My repeal never addressed the issue from the OOC stand-point; that is, it never said "this stuff breaks the fourth wall", among other things. It essentially said "we shouldn't do things this way, because it's kind of mean". I think [violet] et. al are jumping the gun a little in thinking that the failure of the repeal was a resounding rejection of the ideology rule... We weren't discussing the rule itself in the repeal, and why it exists in the GA and how it breaks the fourth wall to condemn Nazism, etc. --- but rather what I thought was acceptable and what wasn't, and why you agree with me.
Last edited by Glen-Rhodes on Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Topid
Minister
 
Posts: 2818
Founded: Dec 29, 2008
Capitalizt

Postby Topid » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:30 pm

I think [Violet]'s point was that the vote reflected that we were wrong, and it isn't "mean" to condemn based on ideology, and it's in fact, fair. I disagree with what the majority voted, but I see Vi's point.

Although if you guys can somehow twist something into a reason to remove the resolution, I'll agree with whatever you say. (Screw Democracy, this is getting annoying!)
Founder, Pacifica

User avatar
Kandarin
Diplomat
 
Posts: 869
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kandarin » Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:46 pm

I feel that the inactivity in C&C’s is because of the great flaws in the current SC resolutions. I think people are just downright annoyed at the SC for such awful resolutions. Mine is by far the most flawed.


It would be a mistake to lump all of the current SC resolutions into one category. All of them are unique and have passed (or failed) based on differing situations; I think you'll find that there's great variation in those who supported (or opposed) any given resolution. For instance, there are those who voted against Condemn Nazi Europe because, like Glen-Rhodes, they thought it was rather mean-spirited. There were also those who voted against it because they feel that Nazi Europe does not deserve attention. Similarly, there were those who voted against Commend Equilism because they're annoyed with C&Cs, but others - far more, going by the general trend of regional forums - who voted against it because they believe Equilism does not deserve a commendation.

This is just fine. C&Cs are a crossover feature that can be used by any and all NS communities to recognize their own. To say that it should or can be expected to follow the terminology and viewpoints of any one such community is to deny the diversity of NS, and furthermore to deny the use of the feature to all others.

The more serious problem with the existing C&C precedent is not its content (except probably for Condemn Nazi Europe) but its lack of scope. Every single one of the current C&Cs deals with some unique case for which there is no parallel elsewhere in the game. Macedon are the only geo-obsessed region-wiping group, 10KI are the only defender monolith, Nazi Europe is the only place where confusion with a real-life ideology is likely to be a serious issue, and whether you like me or not you're never going to find any previous long-standing RR delegates for comparison. The problem is not that the precedent sends the wrong message to future proposal writers, but that it doesn't send a usable message. Future C&C writers can't glean much of anything useful from them because the nation or region they will try to commend or condemn will inevitably be so different.

The SC needs more "normal" C&Cs. There ought to be more condemnations of well-run regions and/or their leaders and condemnations of evil RP nations - or who knows, condemnations of dystopian regions and/or their leaders and commendations of saintly RP nations. Right now, the entire roster consists of one-offs and so there isn't anything that really blazes a path.
I wish I remember who wrote:Games like Nationstates are like a big cardboard box, and there are two kinds of people in the world. The kind who look at the empty void inside the box and ask "Where the hell is it?" and the kind who jump into the box with their friends and make it into a fort, or a spaceship.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Security Council

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RiderSyl

Advertisement

Remove ads