PASSED: Repeal "Commend 10000 Islands"

[Whamabama]

Interesting. We now have enshrined in WA law (well, SC law anyway...) the concept that the WA must remain entirely neutral when handing out C&Cs. I wonder, does this policy of neutrality extend to Liberation resolutions as well? And how exactly do you commend, condemn or liberate while staying entirely neutral?

You can't. Not on either one. That is one of the reasons why their is a SC forum, and not having these discussions in the GA area. The rules for C&C, and liberation's are just not compatible.

[Lyncaenia]

It's so nice to know that the Security Council can be so easily deceived by an invader smear campaign. Congratulations on yet another constructive debate.

Oh you make me laugh. Seriously! If the vote goes your way, "the impartial voice of the people has been heard" but if it goes our way, it's a smear campaign. Okay I admit, Aegara is passionate and very energetic--he's young and enthusiastic and who can blame him? He vehemently believes in his cause! And Savaer is a legend in the raider circles. Both men are a strong voice and have strong opinions.

But review everything written, in the repeal and here in the forum. There is no smear of 10k Islands--nor character assassination, name-calling, blame or ad hominem attacks! The goal was clear and may have been stated imperfectly but it was to the point. Commending an entire region for one legal action within the game is not acceptable; just as it is not acceptable to claim that the other legal action within the game is "immoral" or that we are "smearing" you just because you did not win. We respectfully asked for votes, and in wisdom the impartial voice of the people has been heard.

What do you know? You were right all along. The WA Security Council really can speak the desires of the nations.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Interesting. We now have enshrined in WA law (well, SC law anyway...) the concept that the WA must remain entirely neutral when handing out C&Cs. I wonder, does this policy of neutrality extend to Liberation resolutions as well? And how exactly do you commend, condemn or liberate while staying entirely neutral?

You can't. Not on either one. That is one of the reasons why their is a SC forum, and not having these discussions in the GA area. The rules for C&C, and liberation's are just not compatible.

I wasn't talking about whether the GA rules and SC rules are compatible or whether or not there is an SC forum. As far as I know those facts are not in dispute.

The fact is though that it was an SC resolution that introduced the precedent of "the time honoured tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions". What I was wondering was, will that have an effect on how future C&Cs and Liberations are written? This doesn't really have anything at all to do with the GA.

[The Monkye]

The fact is though that it was an SC resolution that introduced the precedent of "the time honoured tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions". What I was wondering was, will that have an effect on how future C&Cs and Liberations are written? This doesn't really have anything at all to do with the GA.

If it 'introduced the precedent', then how can it be time honored? Using those words in the same sentence is an oxymoron. I think the words you want to add there are 'precedent of using "the time honored tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions" as a reason for repeal.

And another thing. The 'time honored' part refers to the GA's traditions, because the SC hasn't been around long enough for neutrality to have become a 'time honored' tradition in the SC. So in my opinion it has everything to do with the GA, but that's just my opinion.

And the effect it will have depends on how people interpret the outcome of this repeal, which according to what I've seen posted in this thread will be numerous in its variations...

[Whamabama]

I wasn't talking about whether the GA rules and SC rules are compatible or whether or not there is an SC forum. As far as I know those facts are not in dispute.

The fact is though that it was an SC resolution that introduced the precedent of "the time honoured tradition of World Assembly neutrality and fairness to all nations and regions". What I was wondering was, will that have an effect on how future C&Cs and Liberations are written? This doesn't really have anything at all to do with the GA.

oh, I understand what you are saying now. I would still say no, simply based on what the SC does can always said to be non-neutral.

If we commend a nation or region the SC is obviously stating support for that nation, or region. Not to mention a liberation of a region.

So I would say that no precedent has been made because it is not compatible for the very role the SC was made for.

I do however believe that the time honored tradition thing has nothing to do with the SC, and everything to do with the GA.

[Glen-Rhodes]

oh, I understand what you are saying now. I would still say no, simply based on what the SC does can always said to be non-neutral.

If we commend a nation or region the SC is obviously stating support for that nation, or region. Not to mention a liberation of a region.

So I would say that no precedent has been made because it is not compatible for the very role the SC was made for.

Well, um... sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm reading it plain-as-day on this legitimately passed repeal. You may not agree with it, but I don't agree with assisted suicide either. Doesn't mean I get to ignore that Dignified End of Life Choices passed.

I do however believe that the time honored tradition thing has nothing to do with the SC, and everything to do with the GA.

It has everything to do with the SC, now, according to this resolution...

[Reseda Island]

why is it that 10000 Islands still has its badge? this can not stay or it proves those in charge are clearly defender lovers which breaks the rules of fairness

[Whamabama]

oh, I understand what you are saying now. I would still say no, simply based on what the SC does can always said to be non-neutral.

If we commend a nation or region the SC is obviously stating support for that nation, or region. Not to mention a liberation of a region.

So I would say that no precedent has been made because it is not compatible for the very role the SC was made for.

Well, um... sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm reading it plain-as-day on this legitimately passed repeal. You may not agree with it, but I don't agree with assisted suicide either. Doesn't mean I get to ignore that Dignified End of Life Choices passed.

I do however believe that the time honored tradition thing has nothing to do with the SC, and everything to do with the GA.

It has everything to do with the SC, now, according to this resolution...

What are you going to say on the next one that passes, and precedence replaces precedent?

[The Monkye]

It has everything to do with the SC, now, according to this resolution...

@ Glen Rhodes: It only has everything to do with the SC if you interpret it that way. You clearly do interpret it that way, whereas Whamabama clearly doesn't. It is not a fact, but merely opinion.



@Reseda Island: It's probably a game mechanic thing that'll take a bit of time. Just because the resolution passed doesn't mean that there's something wrong when the badge isn't immediately taken down.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

If it 'introduced the precedent', then how can it be time honored?

Ask the author, I didn't write the thing. Nevertheless, the law means what the laws says and you can't deny that those words are contained in the text of a passed resolution.

And another thing. The 'time honored' part refers to the GA's traditions, because the SC hasn't been around long enough for neutrality to have become a 'time honored' tradition in the SC. So in my opinion it has everything to do with the GA, but that's just my opinion.

Believe whatever you want but the precedent was set by a SC resolution, not a GA one.

And the effect it will have depends on how people interpret the outcome of this repeal, which according to what I've seen posted in this thread will be numerous in its variations...

The effect it has will most likely be...nothing, because the mods/admins won't enforce it as being precedent setting. In other words, SC authors will be able to continue doing pretty much whatever they like. So don't get too upset, nothing's going to change.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

So I would say that no precedent has been made because it is not compatible for the very role the SC was made for.

I do however believe that the time honored tradition thing has nothing to do with the SC, and everything to do with the GA.

But again, those words are contained in the text of a SC resolution. The GA had nothing to do with this.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

why is it that 10000 Islands still has its badge? this can not stay or it proves those in charge are clearly defender lovers which breaks the rules of fairness

Hush. It's a game glitch. There is no pro-defender conspiracy.

[The Monkye]

'The Precedent' was not set by anything and is nothing more than a construction of your imagination. And the construct is nothing more than an importation of GA beliefs into the the SC.

Ask the author, I didn't write the thing. Nevertheless, the law means what the laws says and you can't deny that those words are contained in the text of a passed resolution.

I would agree that 'a law means what a law says', but C&C's are not laws.

[Whamabama]

The resolution may have had "time honored" within it, but clearly the newness of the SC means that this is a false statement. To declare that C&C's are now over because of this false wording is not going to get rid of them. They are not in any way neutral, so all would have to be declared illegal by this flawed logic.

I say flawed logic, because to have this made into law would make the very things illegal, and that is not going to happen. So by simple logic, no precedence that we will be forced to follow. It just doesn't work.

The best thing I can think of is, if you dislike the SC or even just parts of the SC, don't participate in them. The SC in not the GA, and not under the same rules as the GA. That includes the logic of this precedence.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

'The Precedent' was not set by anything and is nothing more than a construction of your imagination. And the construct is nothing more than an importation of GA beliefs into the the SC.

Ask the author, I didn't write the thing. Nevertheless, the law means what the laws says and you can't deny that those words are contained in the text of a passed resolution.

I would agree that 'a law means what a law says', but C&C's are not laws.

Yes but, [violet] herself said that the SC players would make their own ruleset for proposals and that it would be done partly through precedent set by passed resolutions. So it isn't my idea to suggest that passed resolutions set precedent, it's [violet]'s.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

To declare that C&C's are now over because of this false wording is not going to get rid of them.

I don't remember ever saying that C&Cs were "over". It would still be possible to write them even if this were considered precedent. One would just have to put a little work and a little thought into how they were written.

The best thing I can think of is, if you dislike the SC or even just parts of the SC, don't participate in them. The SC in not the GA, and not under the same rules as the GA. That includes the logic of this precedence.

So I should go away and stop upsetting everyone with my crazy talk about laws and precedent? OK.

[Whamabama]

I don't remember ever saying that C&Cs were "over". It would still be possible to write them even if this were considered precedent. One would just have to put a little work and a little thought into how they were written.

Too many are very badly written, but the only thing I can see precedent here, would be that the very writing of one would be illegal, and that is not going to happen. Simply put you can't write one up, and stay neutral, the very thing is far from neutral.

So I should go away and stop upsetting everyone with my crazy talk about laws and precedent? OK.

No law has been made here.

[New Dracora]

why is it that 10000 Islands still has its badge? this can not stay or it proves those in charge are clearly defender lovers which breaks the rules of fairness

Hush. It's a game glitch. There is no pro-defender conspiracy.

*pulls up in a black van*

*grabs Reseda Island and drags him inside*

*speeds quietly away*

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

I don't remember ever saying that C&Cs were "over". It would still be possible to write them even if this were considered precedent. One would just have to put a little work and a little thought into how they were written.

Too many are very badly written, but the only thing I can see precedent here, would be that the very writing of one would be illegal, and that is not going to happen. Simply put you can't write one up, and stay neutral, the very thing is far from neutral.

So I should go away and stop upsetting everyone with my crazy talk about laws and precedent? OK.

No law has been made here.

Fixed your quote tags.

And you're right, SC resolutions are not laws. That "the law means what the law says" mantra is just a habit I've carried over from the GA. But words do mean things, and even if SC resolutions are not "laws" it doesn't change the fact that they are WA Resolutions. And it doesn't change the fact that the players (us) are supposed to be developing the rules and guidelines for SC proposals, partially through the precedent set by the Resolutions that we pass. I'm not making this stuff up just to be difficult, I'm repeating what has been said in other discussions about developing the SC ruleset.

[Philimbesi]

Herb stood up... "Boo Boo we hate them now, we liked them before, but now we hate them... boo, they stink, go home 10000 islands, your mother smells like elderberries..." then he fell asleep!

[Unibot]

As I've stated before, I'm interpreting the "tradition" clause as discussing neutrality through evidence, to eliminate biasness, instead of neutrality in the international law sense. Commend 10000 islands lacked evidence, and relyed on people's morality for votes. There in fact is such a 'time-honored tradition' of the World Assembly to provide a well reasoned preamble -- see the General Assembly for examples.

[Martyrdoom]

As I've stated before, I'm interpreting the "tradition" clause as discussing neutrality through evidence, to eliminate biasness, instead of neutrality in the international law sense. Commend 10000 islands lacked evidence, and relyed on people's morality for votes. There in fact is such a 'time-honored tradition' of the World Assembly to provide a well reasoned preamble -- see the General Assembly for examples.

When you're right you're right.

[Ardchoille]

Archiving now. There's another thread for people who want to discuss the neutrality issue/