NATION

PASSWORD

Illegal SC proposals - post them here

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.
User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5720
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Illegal SC proposals - post them here

Postby Wrapper » Thu Aug 02, 2012 2:36 pm

Starting again with a new thread that makes its purpose clear.

  • This is a thread for posting submitted proposals that you believe are illegal.
  • Posting a proposal here does not guarantee that it will be deleted, nor do we guarantee that mods will check this thread regularly. If a proposal urgently needs to be removed, report it via Getting Help Request.
  • If a proposal already has a thread, discuss it in that thread. Don't post about it here.
  • Do not make up proposals and post them here. We will not be amused.
  • When posting proposals here, it helps to identify why you believe they are illegal.
  • We allow limited replies to proposals posted here, but if you want extended discussion on a proposal, start a new thread for it.

The SC proposal rules can be found here, and the SC Compendium contains a record of all previous rulings.

Previous version of this thread.
Last edited by Sedgistan on Thu Aug 02, 2012 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Weed
Diplomat
 
Posts: 808
Founded: Oct 23, 2011
Anarchy

Postby Weed » Thu Aug 02, 2012 2:44 pm

Sedgistan wrote:[*]Posting a proposal here does not guarantee that it will be deleted, nor do we guarantee that mods will check this thread regularly. If a proposal urgently needs to be removed, report it via Getting Help Request.

Sooo... Report it here unless it might actually go to vote? Is that the new policy?
Pacifica
A Fun, New, Republican region
A Democratic & Free PACIFICA
Formerly Known as Topid
Ex-Defender
Former WASC Author
----V----
Weed
LIVE FREE

User avatar
Sedgistan
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 27332
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Sedgistan » Thu Aug 02, 2012 2:47 pm

If you think it's going to get to vote, report it via GHR. Otherwise, you can report it either here or via GHR - your call.

User avatar
Fischistan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1384
Founded: Oct 16, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Fischistan » Thu Aug 02, 2012 6:31 pm

Are we not allowed to post the silly but legal proposals here?
Xavier D'Montagne
Fischistani Ambassador to the WA
Unibot II wrote:It's Carta. He CANNOT Fail. Only successes in reverse.
The Matthew Islands wrote:Knowledge is knowing the Tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.
Anthony Delasanta wrote:its was not genocide it was ethnic cleansing...
Socorra wrote:A religion-free abortion thread is like a meat-free hamburger.
Help is on its Way: UDL
Never forget 11 September.
Never look off the edge of cliff on a segway.

11 September 1973, of course.

User avatar
The Great Destruction
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 398
Founded: Nov 08, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The Great Destruction » Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:20 pm

Forgive me my ignorance for that. We may have to start a new thread for those. I'm not sure.

User avatar
Damanucus
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1699
Founded: Dec 10, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Damanucus » Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:03 pm

Fischistan wrote:Are we not allowed to post the silly but legal proposals here?


Unless my knowledge of the rules is severely lacking, Bloody Stupid still counts as a rule violation. So, yeah, I think silly can go here, but just be prepared to defend your position; silly is relative.

User avatar
Kingborough
Diplomat
 
Posts: 567
Founded: Jun 22, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Kingborough » Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:14 am

The Great Destruction wrote:Forgive me my ignorance for that. We may have to start a new thread for those. I'm not sure.


Going on the rules in the OP, you post them here and Mods review them now. This is no longer a place to discuss or laugh over silly proposals.
Founder of Nysa

User avatar
Skyrim Diplomacy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1497
Founded: Jun 25, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Skyrim Diplomacy » Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:58 am


User avatar
Sedgistan
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 27332
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Sedgistan » Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:55 am

It's a terrible proposal, but I'm not seeing the Rule 4 violations - the WA is made up of people too (within the member nations).

User avatar
Skyrim Diplomacy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1497
Founded: Jun 25, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Skyrim Diplomacy » Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:57 am

Sedgistan wrote:It's a terrible proposal, but I'm not seeing the Rule 4 violations - the WA is made up of people too (within the member nations).

I guess "we" could be used to mean the WA nations of the world, though I've seen proposals removed for less.

User avatar
Skyrim Diplomacy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1497
Founded: Jun 25, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Skyrim Diplomacy » Wed Aug 29, 2012 3:31 pm

Illegal under R3, no operative clause. It's strangely reminiscent of Man Door Hand Hook Car Door.

User avatar
Frattastan
Diplomat
 
Posts: 700
Founded: Oct 24, 2007
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Frattastan » Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:18 pm

SECURITY COUNCIL PROPOSAL
ID: great_jergania_and_jonland_1346359755
Condemn TBH Commander

A resolution to express shock and dismay at a nation or region.


Category: Condemnation


Nominee: TBH Commander


Proposed by: Great Jergania and Jonland

Description: Recognizing The Most Feared Military of TBH Commander as the leader and founder of The Black Hawks, a condemned region.

Reminding That The Black Hawks are an invader region, and has invaded many regions "for fun".

Believes That The Most Feared Military of TBH Commander has leaded most of or all of what the Black Hawks have done.

Believes That The Most Feared Military of TBH Commander should take some form of punishment for his actions.

Hereby Condemns The Most Feared Military of TBH Commander.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 68 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 3 days 6 hours


Personal pronoun "his" referring to a nation. Implies TBH Commander is a person. Rule 4.
Last edited by Frattastan on Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
San Francisco Bay Area (forum) | Founderless Regions Alliance (FRA) | Rejected Realms Army (RRA)

Drop Your Pants wrote:I think raiders are cute, the way they think they're big and scary people who threaten others :)

User avatar
Damanucus
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1699
Founded: Dec 10, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Damanucus » Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:07 pm

Condemn 10000 Islands
A resolution to express shock and dismay at a nation or region.


Category: Condemnation

Nominee: 10000 Islands

Proposed by: Confederate States of New Zealand

Description: This proposal calls for a condemnation of The Protectorate of New Boltor due to their refusal to remove the biker gangs ravaging their lands. Therefore, we must take action. NOW. Please support this proposal.


So the writer condemns the entire region just because he wants to condemn one nation? Even I know that breaks a rule somewhere.

(Edit: This was flicked over from the GA silly proposal thread, after Flib noted it was in the wrong place.)
Last edited by Damanucus on Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Skyrim Diplomacy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1497
Founded: Jun 25, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Skyrim Diplomacy » Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:10 pm

Damanucus wrote:
Condemn 10000 Islands
A resolution to express shock and dismay at a nation or region.


Category: Condemnation

Nominee: 10000 Islands

Proposed by: Confederate States of New Zealand

Description: This proposal calls for a condemnation of The Protectorate of New Boltor due to their refusal to remove the biker gangs ravaging their lands. Therefore, we must take action. NOW. Please support this proposal.


So the writer condemns the entire region just because he wants to condemn one nation? Even I know that breaks a rule somewhere.

The targets are wrong...but I don't think it's illegal.

User avatar
Damanucus
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1699
Founded: Dec 10, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Damanucus » Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:13 pm

Skyrim Diplomacy wrote:
Damanucus wrote:
So the writer condemns the entire region just because he wants to condemn one nation? Even I know that breaks a rule somewhere.

The targets are wrong...but I don't think it's illegal.

I think it is: R3. It must condemn the target (which this doesn't).

User avatar
Sedgistan
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 27332
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Sedgistan » Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:14 pm

Definitely illegal - Rule 3 violation, in that it doesn't have an operative clause condemning 10000 Islands. If he'd somehow managed to submit a proposal whose text argued for a condemnation of New Boltor, but then had an operative clause condemning 10000 Islands, we'd delete that too - the text of a proposal is meant to contain an argument for the action the SC is undertaking.

User avatar
Damanucus
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1699
Founded: Dec 10, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Damanucus » Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:27 pm

Sedgistan wrote:Definitely illegal - Rule 3 violation, in that it doesn't have an operative clause condemning 10000 Islands. If he'd somehow managed to submit a proposal whose text argued for a condemnation of New Boltor, but then had an operative clause condemning 10000 Islands, we'd delete that too - the text of a proposal is meant to contain an argument for the action the SC is undertaking.

Phew! Thanks Sedg.

User avatar
Skyrim Diplomacy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1497
Founded: Jun 25, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Skyrim Diplomacy » Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:28 pm

Ah, there we go. Makes sense now that I see it. And to think I just reported one for violating R3... :palm:
Last edited by Skyrim Diplomacy on Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Skyrim Diplomacy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1497
Founded: Jun 25, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Skyrim Diplomacy » Fri Aug 31, 2012 4:46 pm

I don't think not condemning counts as "hereby repeals" or some such thing, does it?

User avatar
Man or Astroman
Secretary
 
Posts: 33
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Man or Astroman » Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:20 pm

Sedgistan wrote:This is a thread for posting submitted proposals that you believe are illegal.

...isn't that what the GHR is for?

User avatar
Crazy girl
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 4664
Founded: Antiquity
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Crazy girl » Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:04 am

If posted here, it's easier to point out to people WHAT they did wrong, and also it's easier for them to find their text and edit it, rather than losing it. It can also serve as a learning place for other people.

User avatar
The Great Destruction
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 398
Founded: Nov 08, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The Great Destruction » Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:59 am

So then do you recommend posting the entire proposal when reporting?

*coughs skyrim diplomacy* :D
Last edited by The Great Destruction on Mon Sep 03, 2012 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sedgistan
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 27332
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Sedgistan » Mon Sep 03, 2012 12:54 pm

Yep, it does help to post the full text too (though it's not something you'd get in trouble for if you didn't).

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5537
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Unibot III » Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:31 pm

@Abbey> I can't quite believe that he managed to make it legal
<+Cormac> I can't believe the mods haven't found some reason to remove it yet.
<+Cormac> There's got to be *something*. :P
<@Abbey> Sedge pointed it out to us :P


CHALLENGE ACCEPTED

Condemn The United Defenders League
A resolution to express shock and dismay at a nation or region.

Category: Condemnation | Nominee: The United Defenders League | Proposed by: United States of Natan

Description: THE SECURITY COUNCIL:

REALIZES that The United Defenders league does go into nations and "frees" them from being taken over

REALIZES that they also will invade and eject nations they think are trying to take it over, regardless of what is really happening.

SEES that they also try to stop nations from annexing their own region that they make on a puppet to have it be an annexation for their regular region.

HEREBY CONDEMNS The United Defenders League

Approvals: 8 (Weed, Soviet Canuckistan, A Fascist, Defiant, Shawb, Gitchie Manito, Sideonia, Vendettera)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 60 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 2 days 7 hours


I question whether the casual use of "puppet" is a Rule 4 violation, since it would be unusual language to call a puppet-state, a "puppet" in formal legalese. Never before in a Security Council resolution has "puppet" been used casually. In SC#78, SC#77, SC#76, SC#63, "puppet state" is used; in SC#58, SC#23, SC#22 and SC#16, "puppet nation" is used.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008 | Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // An Analysis of NationStates Generations // The Gameplay Alignment Test // NS Weather // How do I join the UDL? // The Transpacific Trade
Paradise Found // The Unibotian Life Expectancy Index // Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78 // The Polysemes of Nativeness;

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
The Great Destruction
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 398
Founded: Nov 08, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The Great Destruction » Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:29 pm

I agree, this would legally apply to an actual puppet, not necessarily a nation, or a government.

However, I don't see how using the term puppet would make a proposal illegal, just absurd, or breakable or heavily open to interpretations. In this instance I believe it simply makes that statement useless and/or untrue.
Last edited by The Great Destruction on Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Security Council

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Queen YUNo

Advertisement

Remove ads