Unibot wrote:Martyrdoom wrote:Sedgistan wrote:Well fear not, I can clear things up. The original resolution was not about free entry to the region, but about allowing the 'former residents' to return:FURTHER NOTING that the former residents of Feudal Japan currently reside in Tokugawa Japan and still desire to return to Feudal Japan;
AWARE that the nations formerly resident in Feudal Japan can return to their region only through the intervention of the Security Council;
All the defenders were/are there to take the delegacy off the invaders, and to allow me and The KoZ to build up influence to kick them out.
When raiders have moved into the region, they've been kicked out, because being raiders - they're there to either cause trouble, or to try and take the region back.
Don't worry, you'll see a native restored to the delegacy soon enough.
"A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region". Sound familiar? It's what a liberation proposal is (or should be) predicated on. I'm just glad you've finally admitted it was about 'allowing former residents to return'.
You seem to be under the impression that Liberations can't happen for a reason, the category description provides us with the knowledge of what the proposal can do. But why we do it, is what fills the proposal with rhetoric.
I can't imagine having proposals with no justification.
Imagine the GA proposing human rights bills solely for the technical benefits of having higher civil rights ratings or submitting free trade proposals because people want their economic stats to increase. Those proposals would be unquestionably crappy.
Now apply that logic to the SC, and imagine a proposal being submitted to solely knock the password off a region, without any reason or rhyme to it. That would not only be absurd, but crap.
The rhetoric is vital to a proposal -- and so long as the rhetoric aligns with the single goal provided by the category's description, its totally legal.
As free-entry, would include free-entry for former residents - its aligns, and is perfectally acceptable.
Do they align though? Former residents are invariably banned. It takes a new delegate (and an overtly political/purposeful act) to undo that; 'free-entry' cannot do that however 'free' it nominally is.
What it can do: 'remove password'
Why: 'to allow "free-entry" where it was previously prevented because its bad.' I have enough rhyme to last me all day.
Given that a liberation proposal, predicated on 'free-entry', cannot undo, by itself, the banning of former residents, then a proposal containing clauses on 'returning the region to the natives' is outside the scope. As the esteemed Travancore stated (p.5), "the language used in the proposal should not suggest that it does something other than what it could do." That's why I've been saying its illegal all along.
How does the removal of the password, by itself mind, allow previously banned former residents into the region? That dog don't hunt.