[PASSED] Repeal "Condemn Canterlot"

[Frisbeeteria]

Just in case that awful proposal somehow passes, I've drafted up an insta-repeal so we can remove that horror off the books as quick as possible.

Repeal "Condemn Canterlot"

A resolution to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal | Resolution: SC#220 | Proposed by: Tim-Opolis

Description: WA Security Council Resolution #220: Condemn Canterlot shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The Security Council,

Clarifying that the 'raiding' which Security Council Resolution #220 refers to is primarily the non-destructive and generally temporary "tag raiding",

Observing that fifty regions is not at all a significant amount to tag raid, especially when considering the vast expanse of the world,

Noting the inaccuracy of SC #220's Clause 3, given that most of the regions attacked by Canterlot were inactive and without founding leaders,

Believing that while garish insignia are difficult to look at, and despite the precedent set by SC#1, they don't merit intervention of the Security Council,

Recognizing that Canterlot, while an invader region, has not yet done anything significant enough to warrant a condemnation,

Convinced that the Security Council should be upholding higher standards than those seen in SC #220,

Hereby Repeals: Security Council Resolution #220 “Condemn Canterlot”.

I'm happy to hear critiques, as always.

[Willania Imperium]

Just in case that awful proposal somehow passes, I've drafted up an insta-repeal so we can remove that horror off the books as quick as possible.

Repeal "Condemn Canterlot"

A resolution to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal | Resolution: SC#220 | Proposed by: Tim-Opolis

Description: WA Security Council Resolution #220: Condemn Canterlot shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The Security Council,

Clarifying that the 'raiding' which Security Council Resolution #220 refers to is primarily the non-destructive and generally temporary "tag raiding",

Observing that fifty regions is not at all a significant amount to tag raid, especially when considering the vast expanse of the world,

Noting that most of the regions attacked by Canterlot were inactive and without founding leaders,

Believing that while garish insignia are difficult to look at, they don't merit intervention of the Security Council,

Recognizing that Canterlot, while an invader region, has not yet done anything significant enough to warrant a condemnation,

Convinced that the Security Council should be upholding higher standards than those seen in SC #220,

Hereby Repeals: Security Council Resolution #220 “Condemn Canterlot”.

I'm happy to hear critiques, as always.

I see nothing wrong with it. I give it a thumbs-up!!!

[NationHelper]

Snip

Full support! I was going to make a repeal, but most people know I'm working on something......

[Love and Glitter]

Recognizing that Canterlot, while an invader region, has not yet done anything significant enough to warrant a condemnation,

Well said.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Covers all the bases Tim. Looks fine.

[Hobbesistan]

This will likely have TEP's support.

[Honeydewistan II]

Although I was originally in support of the condemn, i don't see anything wrong with repealing it. Great work Tim.

[NationHelper]

So, Tim, when are you going to fix that mistake I spotted in your thread on resolutions?

[Tinhampton]

If this passes, I'll be proposing Repeal "Repeal "Condemn Canterlot"" before you know it!
but no, srsly. against.

[NationHelper]

If this passes, I'll be proposing Repeal "Repeal "Condemn Canterlot"" before you know it!
but no, srsly. against.

Than someone will oppose repeal repeal reapeal canterlot....

[Tim-Opolis]

So, Tim, when are you going to fix that mistake I spotted in your thread on resolutions?

That's a mistake from way before I maintained that thread, but it's handled.

[Frenequesta]

I'd personally take out the "Noting" Clause and add something speculating about the animus behind the resolution, but that's just me.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

"I like it"

[RiderSyl]

Pulling an insta-repeal! SkyDip would be proud.

Full support.

[The Jins]

Sorry, I'm Against. This proposal is quite important to the small regions of NationStates who are at risk of being tag raided by them, and they don't like it, whether or not it's full raiding or not

[Ventaion]

Sorry, I'm Against. This proposal is quite important to the small regions of NationStates who are at risk of being tag raided by them, and they don't like it, whether or not it's full raiding or not

Its more a matter that the thing we are trying to repeal is shitely worded, and is more fandombash than actually concerning.

They are a small raidef region, grow up.

[Tim-Opolis]

Sorry, I'm Against. This proposal is quite important to the small regions of NationStates who are at risk of being tag raided by them, and they don't like it, whether or not it's full raiding or not

The Security Council is a body that should have some actual standards, rather than throwing a badge at every cutesy raider region that pops up every few months. The majority of those regions being tagged are dead anyway, and the rest usually have a founder who can easily restore the page.

There is absolutely no reason to so significantly downgrade the standards of this body for a region which, when it comes down to it, had done nothing IC significant, is only about a month old, and has one of the most poorly written proposals for it that I have ever seen get to the voting floor without being obliterated.

I'd personally take out the "Noting" Clause and add something speculating about the animus behind the resolution, but that's just me.

What exactly do you mean like that? Animus as in the spirit behind the resolution? While I would be more than happy to label this proposal as a poorly drafted, researched, and written badge hunt, I figured addressing a significant innacuracy in what actual content is there was more worth a clause.

[Stratarin]

I fully support this.

[Frenequesta]

I'd personally take out the "Noting" Clause and add something speculating about the animus behind the resolution, but that's just me.

What exactly do you mean like that? Animus as in the spirit behind the resolution? While I would be more than happy to label this proposal as a poorly drafted, researched, and written badge hunt, I figured addressing a significant innacuracy in what actual content is there was more worth a clause.

Lots of people are speculating that the only reason for resolution's passage is fandom-bashing.

Hence why I said "personally." It wasn't a serious suggestion as to animus.

I'm a bit more serious about the Noting Clause though. It does highlight a misleading implication of the resolution, but the particular line it refers to is not the only reasonable way to see it-- it could be read to be specifically read to be especially concerned about those regions that are "growing" regardless of how many aren't. Further, I'd rather not imply that some regions are perfectly fine to raid just because they are founderless or inactive--the CTE or departure of a founder does not mean that the founder might not still have an interest in the region later, and the inactivity might just be because the region just wants to be a place where countries plop themselves, and raiding disturbs the peace that they seek.

[Yuno Owl]

The first proposal looked like it was written by a real/disgruntled native rather than mainstream gameplayers which, IMO, made me find it endearing. So being biased I hope it passes. That's about the only reason to support it. It logically shouldn't, for reasons your repeal listed. Canterlot invades for fun, not reaalll destruction.... their tags are aesthetically wonderful n_n

[Tim-Opolis]

Lots of people are speculating that the only reason for resolution's passage is fandom-bashing.

Hence why I said "personally." It wasn't a serious suggestion as to animus.

I'm a bit more serious about the Noting Clause though. It does highlight a misleading implication of the resolution, but the particular line it refers to is not the only reasonable way to see it-- it could be read to be specifically read to be especially concerned about those regions that are "growing" regardless of how many aren't. Further, I'd rather not imply that some regions are perfectly fine to raid just because they are founderless or inactive--the CTE or departure of a founder does not mean that the founder might not still have an interest in the region later, and the inactivity might just be because the region just wants to be a place where countries plop themselves, and raiding disturbs the peace that they seek.

I'm by no means a fan of said fandom either, but I would hope that a fandom bashing proposal would be written better than that.

In regards to the Noting clause, I think the fact that the Security Council already condemns invader groups is representative of the fact that it is not supportive of raiding innocent regions. I do see your point, though, and have edited the Noting clause to be specifically calling out the inaccuracy in SC #220's Clause 3 rather than any sort of implication that it's okay to raid inactive regions.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Here's a suggestion Tim;

Believing that while garish insignia are difficult to look at, and despite the precedent set by SC#1, they don't merit intervention of the Security Council,

Just a thought.

[The Blind Man]

Full support of this Repeal.

[Drasnia]

Welp, it just passed, so full support from me now.

[Willania Imperium]

When are you going to publish it?