[PASSED] Condemn DEN (by A Million Dollars)

[Wallenburg]

I'll take the author for his word that he intentionally disgraced the World Assembly with an amateur and mediocre piece of legislation. It'll make for a good reason to repeal this.

I am offended that you would say I would intentionally disgrace the World Assembly.

I did not intentionally use poor grammar to disgrace the WA, I used poor grammar and poor wording to disgrace DEN.

You intentionally used terrible grammar, and thereby disgraced the World Assembly. Therefore you intentionally disgraced the World Assembly.

[A Million Dollars]

So everybody understands,

I purposefully wrote this proposal with poor grammar. The purpose was to condemn DEN with a poorly written proposal so their badge is no longer something to celebrate and be proud of. This proposal is passed to remind DEN about how easily a poorly written proposal can show dismay towards them, which they take as a compliment. They can no longer be proud of their condemnation since it was poorly written, and pretty much false in some standards.

Basically, I try to show DEN they shouldn't be proud of their condemnation, as the purpose is to show how much damage they do to small regions. Since the proposal was passed and hey are condemned with a grammatically-incorrect proposal, they can now be shamed about being condemned by a small nation using a poorly written proposal.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. If you have any more questions, feel free to telegram me, as I will (most likely) no longer be active on this subforum.

Regards,

A Million Dollars

Yeah... I don't believe that for a second...

I don't care. Believe me, or don't. It was passed, and although it will get repealed quickly, it is meant to disgrace DEN. I see it is working, as you are in disbelief. Good. I like to see DENers oppose others' explanations.

[A Million Dollars]

I am offended that you would say I would intentionally disgrace the World Assembly.

I did not intentionally use poor grammar to disgrace the WA, I used poor grammar and poor wording to disgrace DEN.

You intentionally used terrible grammar, and thereby disgraced the World Assembly. Therefore you intentionally disgraced the World Assembly.

That was not my intention. As you can not speak for others, and I can only speak for myself, all I can say is I did not mean to disgrace the WA. If you are trying to enrage me because I condemned a region full of bullies, it is certainly not working. I play this game for fun, and unlike most people who play, I don't do it 24/7. I get on every few days to check telegrams, respond to issues, etc. because I am a Freshman in high school. Many more priorities oversee those of this game. Therefore, I am done on this forums. Good day.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

I am offended that you would say I would intentionally disgrace the World Assembly.

I did not intentionally use poor grammar to disgrace the WA, I used poor grammar and poor wording to disgrace DEN.

You intentionally used terrible grammar, and thereby disgraced the World Assembly. Therefore you intentionally disgraced the World Assembly.

That's a bit of a logical leap there. Intentional actions sometimes result in unintended consequences.

[Wallenburg]

You intentionally used terrible grammar, and thereby disgraced the World Assembly. Therefore you intentionally disgraced the World Assembly.

That's a bit of a logical leap there. Intentional actions sometimes result in unintended consequences.

I'm really not sure how you can intentionally write a bad resolution without knowing that you are staining the WA...

[Imperium Anglorum]

That's a bit of a logical leap there. Intentional actions sometimes result in unintended consequences.

I'm really not sure how you can intentionally write a bad resolution without knowing that you are staining the WA...

By not connecting badly written language to a stain on the World Assembly. There is a large difference between intent and unintended consequences. The only way that difference disappears is if you would accept that the action-inaction distinction disappears as well. I do not accept that. And if you do, you better start helping poor people everywhere you go, because you would then be intending to cause their suffering by not helping (the philosopher Peter Singer at Princeton has a lot to say about this).

[Wallenburg]

I'm really not sure how you can intentionally write a bad resolution without knowing that you are staining the WA...

By not connecting badly written language to a stain on the World Assembly. There is a large difference between intent and unintended consequences. The only way that difference disappears is if you would accept that the action-inaction distinction disappears as well. I do not accept that. And if you do, you better start helping poor people everywhere you go, because you would then be intending to cause their suffering by not helping (the philosopher Peter Singer at Princeton has a lot to say about this).

This has absolutely nothing to do with the difference between action and inaction.

[Imperium Anglorum]

By not connecting badly written language to a stain on the World Assembly. There is a large difference between intent and unintended consequences. The only way that difference disappears is if you would accept that the action-inaction distinction disappears as well. I do not accept that. And if you do, you better start helping poor people everywhere you go, because you would then be intending to cause their suffering by not helping (the philosopher Peter Singer at Princeton has a lot to say about this).

This has absolutely nothing to do with the difference between action and inaction.

1. The manner in which a person can "intentionally write a bad resolution without knowing that you are staining the WA" is:

2. By not connecting badly written language to a stain on the World Assembly.

3. The only way that difference disappears is if you would accept that the action-inaction distinction disappears as well. Fundamentally, the only way to negate (2) is to assert (3). Given that (3) is incorrect, (2) is correct, and therefore, the absolute statement in (1) cannot be correct by contradiction.

[Wallenburg]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the difference between action and inaction.

1. The manner in which a person can "intentionally write a bad resolution without knowing that you are staining the WA" is:

2. By not connecting badly written language to a stain on the World Assembly.

3. The only way that difference disappears is if you would accept that the action-inaction distinction disappears as well. Fundamentally, the only way to negate (2) is to assert (3). Given that (3) is incorrect, (2) is correct, and therefore, the absolute statement in (1) cannot be correct by contradiction.

Ah, I see. For that to work, the author of this condemnation would have to be an idiot. I do not think he is.

[Imperium Anglorum]

1. The manner in which a person can "intentionally write a bad resolution without knowing that you are staining the WA" is:

2. By not connecting badly written language to a stain on the World Assembly.

3. The only way that difference disappears is if you would accept that the action-inaction distinction disappears as well. Fundamentally, the only way to negate (2) is to assert (3). Given that (3) is incorrect, (2) is correct, and therefore, the absolute statement in (1) cannot be correct by contradiction.

Ah, I see. For that to work, the author of this condemnation would have to be an idiot. I do not think he is.

So, you're saying that (2) can only be true given that the condemnation author is an idiot. Does that disprove (1)? It does not. Whilst that would put my advocacy in the less-than appealing place of having to support the a fact claim that the author is an idiot, the truth value of that statement does not affect the conclusion given in (3). Whether or not the author is an idiot or not is outside of this debate.

[Wrapper]

Ah, I see. For that to work, the author of this condemnation would have to be an idiot. I do not think he is.

One, let's be very careful on how we phrase things. I know you're not calling the author an idiot, but insinuating that he might be borders on flamebait, even with the "I don't think he is" qualifier. Not a warning, just some voice-of-mod "watch where you step" advice.

Two, there are other plausible explanations. We know the author is new to the Security Council. How would he know whether something would be "a stain on the World Assembly"? What he and others feel might constitute a "stain" may not jive with what you think is a "stain".

[Naginii]

Let's not go after the author's intelligence. That's not in question. What is at question, to me anyway, is what I see as the underlying flawed premise for all this: the stated premise of the author in creating a "purposely poor" condemn, and working to get it passed, was that it would create a negative association with the condemn and something that they'd not want to draw attention to or use for recruiting.

All discussions of the potential downside negative consequences to the WASC reputation aside, this is rather unfortunate logic. It assumes DEN cares about the quality of the bullets used in the condemn to execute them with. They don't. Once passed, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever how well/poorly the reso was written, a condemn is a condemn to the condemned regardless of quality. Further, as was warned by numerous nations in here during the debate, that no-effect would be the end result, DEN is already flashing it around and using it in recruitment efforts. The condemn had no negative effect. If anything, the group's numbers went-up.

The attitude on the gamemap of DEN troopers, collectively, is that the WASC is obsessed with them and everything they do. They expect condemns to pass regardless of quality, especially since there seems to be a blind herd-mentality when it comes anything DEN. Therefore, poor or not, they're not giving this condemn any greater or lesser attention because of how it's written.

Passing a poorly written reso says volumes about the mentality in the WASC than it does about DEN. Many nations, in an effort to join the bandwagon and the winning side likely just read the headline, "Condemn DEN" and voted along party lines without reading or questioning too carefully what they were supporting.

Therefore I would urge nations in future to think a bit more carefully about what you're voting for, and dispassionately so, and avoid rushing along with the mob just to slap a badge on someone. Further, you weaken the only tool you really have to curb behavior (even slightly); the more often you go through the condemn/repeal/condemn/repeal cycle, the less and less the badge matters to anyone outside this group.

Caveat Emptor.

That said, it's time to move on from this. A repeal is in the works, a new condemn as well, and the debate will continue anew.

[Wallenburg]

Ah, I see. For that to work, the author of this condemnation would have to be an idiot. I do not think he is.

One, let's be very careful on how we phrase things. I know you're not calling the author an idiot, but insinuating that he might be borders on flamebait, even with the "I don't think he is" qualifier. Not a warning, just some voice-of-mod "watch where you step" advice.

I'm not sure how you could interpret it that way, since I said the direct opposite, but I'll try to avoid that rhetoric, then.

Two, there are other plausible explanations. We know the author is new to the Security Council. How would he know whether something would be "a stain on the World Assembly"? What he and others feel might constitute a "stain" may not jive with what you think is a "stain".

I suppose so, but it seems to me that polluting the Security Council with intentionally bad resolutions would self evidently be an act of staining or disgracing the SC.

[The Silver Sentinel]

I suppose so, but it seems to me that polluting the Security Council with intentionally bad resolutions would self evidently be an act of staining or disgracing the SC.

Well..... We are now currently voting to liberate a military jump point, so I would say the ba is about as low as it can go....

[We Are Not the NSA]

Yeah... I don't believe that for a second...

I don't care. Believe me, or don't. It was passed, and although it will get repealed quickly, it is meant to disgrace DEN. I see it is working, as you are in disbelief. Good. I like to see DENers oppose others' explanations.

Tbh, I'm more embarrassed by this as a member of the SC than as a member of DEN. Condemnations are a win-win scenario.

We aren't condemned --> We aren't condemned. Since nothing happens, nothing happens.
We are condemned --> Morale boost, usually a few spammers trying to gloat for some reason, but nothing that affects us tactically.

The reason I am pissed about this, and the reason I am the only member of DEN who is pissed about this, is because there is no correlation between my anger and my membership in DEN. I'm angry because you wrote a shitty proposal, didn't draft it, then had the gall to pretend it was some sort of plan to have a crap resolution. Newsflash: it's a shit plan. As Naginii said earlier:

A badge is a badge and it won't matter to them. They'll use it for recruitment and as a battleflag regardless of the overall quality of the legislation that passed it.

The only demographic of DEN who would care about the quality of the condemnation is the overlap of raiders and security council participants, of which there is only one member.

[Wallenburg]

I suppose so, but it seems to me that polluting the Security Council with intentionally bad resolutions would self evidently be an act of staining or disgracing the SC.

Well..... We are now currently voting to liberate a military jump point, so I would say the ba is about as low as it can go....

Now I'm reading your posts in a New England accent.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Well..... We are now currently voting to liberate a military jump point, so I would say the ba is about as low as it can go....

Now I'm reading your posts in a New England accent.

It isn't just New England which utilises non-rhotic speech (that is, all 'r's turn into 'h's unless preceding a vowel). Received pronunciation also uses it, as do most dialects of English from southeastern England. I speak a mix of Estuary myself, so that's most words.

[New Dukaine]

Den has been pernamently been deleted by mods.

i think we can lock?