NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Repeal "Commend Topid"

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.
User avatar
Bormiar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1265
Founded: Mar 25, 2019
Ex-Nation

[PASSED] Repeal "Commend Topid"

Postby Bormiar » Tue May 10, 2022 2:00 pm

The Security Council,

Conceding that Topid was involved in the early Security Council, and many of their contributions were impressive,

Arguing, however, that SC#98 greatly exaggerates the ultimate meaningfulness of Topid’s involvement, especially given that much of their career in the Security Council was plagued with damaging mistakes,

Noting that immediately following the foundation of the Security Council, Topid — using a vassal state named TannerFrankland which Topid would later describe as “the most hated [nation] in SC history”— passed the infamous resolution “Condemn NAZI EUROPE”, which led to over a year of angry debate, several attempts by prominent nations to repeal, and a strong push for an outright proscription of resolutions condemning ideologies,

Citing that after this debacle, Topid, under another puppet state known as Daynor, created yet another messy fight in the form of “Condemn Grub”, naively and wrongfully accusing the 10000 Islands founder of “harassing” and “embarrassing” the natives of the raider region Empire of Power, in a proposal widely-disliked by Security Council members,

Recognizing that Topid attempted to distance themselves from their early work by abandoning TannerFrankland, deprioritizing Daynor, and creating Topid,

Concerned, however, that Topid would again misstep in their early accusations against the General Assembly, which Topid would later describe as misguided and caused by naiveté,

Certain that Topid’s Repeal “Commend 10000 Islands” — written under the nation Topid — was unconvincing and, due to political tactlessness, caused a much larger fight between Topid and 10000 Islands than necessary,

Noting that Topid has written two open letters to members of the Security Council apologizing for much of their early work in the Security Council,

Granting that while Topid did indeed found The Security Council, as mentioned in SC#98, nations such as Sedgistan and A Mean Old Man were the primary contributors to drafting. Topid was a nation with far less experience or clout, and was largely mentored by other nations in the region,

Believing that the campaigns of Topid and others against Security Council by-laws early on in the assembly’s gestation were premature. These nations claimed that these by-laws would shut out commendations and condemnations for nations which involve themselves in inter-regional war, but the reverse came to pass, with these nations receiving disproportionate attention,

Disappointed that the World Factbook Entry of The Security Council states that the existence of these by-laws ensured that the Security Council collapsed and could not have a real community, a claim that is not only insulting, but incorrect, as the Security Council has successfully maintained a community of dedicated nations for over a decade,

Unsure of SC#98’s claim that the most major campaigner against these by-laws, the Third-Walled Bloc, was single-handedly maintaining Security Council activity, and that after its collapse, Topid revived the Security Council with the passage of “Condemn Unknown”. While “Condemn Unknown” may have signified an acceptance of existing Security Council by-laws, SC#98 does not say this, instead making suspect claims about activity, though the frequency of resolutions passed did not change significantly before and after “Condemn Unknown”,

Unconvinced that “Condemn Unknown” was, as SC#98 implies, an example of Topid’s supposed pioneering, as the opinion promoted by “Condemn Unknown” — that the destruction of regional communication systems is condemnable — has never become a widespread or standardized belief in the Security Council,

Unimpressed by many of Topid’s other resolutions, which were of a lower quality than those by other pioneers, containing far less concrete evidence than other resolutions, and typically being far vaguer,

Concluding that much of Topid’s history in the Security Council was tainted by repeated mistakes, and that their valid contributions were sparser and of lesser quality than other early members, like Sedgistan, A Mean Old Man, and Naivetry, none of which have received commendation for their Security Council work alone,

Hereby repeals SC#98 “Commend Topid”.


The Security Council,

Recognizing Topid as an impressive nation, but more so for their region-building efforts than for their work in the Security Council,

Conceding that Topid was indeed an early pioneer of the Security Council, but arguing that their contributions were sparse compared to those of other participants like Naivetry, Sedgistan, and A Mean Old Man, none of which received commendation solely for their Security Council work, as Topid did,

Noting that this disparity in contributions extends to The Security Council, the region which SC#98 commends Topid for founding, as said region’s drafting threads were primarily contributed to by nations like Sedgistan, and A Mean Old Man,

Slightly embarrassed by the early crusade against Security Council Rule IV (renamed to Rule 2 in recent years), which stipulates that proposals mentioning events which did not truly occur in this reality must be removed by designated moderation nations. They believed that this would shut out condemnations and commendations for those who have participated in subsections of NationStates such as raiding and defending, but in fact the reverse came to pass, with those subcultures enjoying consistent and disproportional dominance in the SC. The hysteria of the early Security Council and groups such as Topid’s region has since been refuted by history,

Noting that The Security Council’s World Factbook Entry to this day arrogantly claims that with the region’s demise, the Security Council itself collapsed, and states that the Security Council cannot have a real community of nations with Rule IV in place, again a claim that has been refuted by our own august standing,

Further rejecting SC#98’s ridiculous claim that the Security Council’s activity was only held up by the very short-lived and ultimately inconsequential Third Wall Bloc, that, hilariously, SC#98 implies to have collapsed at most 2.5 months following its announcement of its presence in international forums. That clause in SC#98 proceeds to make the suspect claim that the loss in activity sparked by the Third Walled Bloc was somehow recovered by Topid’s passing of “Condemn Unknown”, a claim that should have been elucidated further, as the frequency of resolutions passed did not significantly change prior to and after the passing of “Condemn Unknown”,

Believing that Topid’s “Condemn Unknown”, which SC#98 specifically commends the nation for, flies in the face of modern Security Council tradition not to condemn nations or regions for forum destruction, as it would be better to ignore them and not give them publicity,

Seeking to rid the Security Council of the celebrations of the Third Walled Bloc and “Condemn Unknown” contained in the text of SC#98,

Understanding Topid’s Security Council history to have been occasionally detrimental (though this by no means detracts from their ultimate worth as a nation), including through their passing of “Condemn NAZI EUROPE”, a resolution which led to an outright ban on proposals condemning regions or nations for an ideology they believe in, and which Topid would later embarassedly apologize for; and their passing of “Condemn Unknown” for forum destruction, expressing a sentiment that is not supported by the Security Council today,

Not particularly impressed by the other resolutions from Topid’s early history in the Security Council, which were of a lower quality than those by other pioneers, containing far less concrete evidence than other resolutions,

Recognizing that the sections of SC#98 not otherwise refuted here are merely a mention of a liberation Topid drafted, and a vague reference to work in General Assembly,

Concluding that Topid is still a respectable nominee, but their description of Topid as a pioneer of the Security Council ended up being grossly exaggerated and premature, as much of their work has since been rejected by future generations of the Security Council community,

Recommending that a replacement for “Commend Topid” be considered in the future,

Hereby repeals SC#98 “Commend Topid”.



The Security Council,

Recognizing Topid as a commendable nation, but not for their Security Council work alone, rather predominately for their region-building efforts,

Conceding that Topid was indeed an early pioneer of the Security Council, but arguing that their contributions were sparse compared to those of other participants like Naivetry, Sedgistan, Unibot, and A Mean Old Man, none of which received commendation solely for their Security Council work, as Topid did,

Noting that this disparity in contributions extends to The Security Council, the region which SC#98 commends Topid for founding, as said region’s drafting threads persist to this day and were primarily contributed to be nations like Sedgistan, A Mean Old Man, and Unibot,

Slightly embarrassed by the early crusade against Security Council Rule IV (renamed to Rule 2 in recent years), which stipulates that proposals mentioning events which did not truly occur in this reality must be removed by designated moderation nations. They believed that this would shut out condemnations and commendations for those who have participated in subsections of NationStates such as raiding and defending, but in fact the reverse came to pass, with those subcultures enjoying consistent and disproportional dominance in the SC. The hysteria of the early Security Council and groups such as Topid’s region has since been refuted by history,

Noting that The Security Council’s World Factbook Entry to this day arrogantly claims that with the region’s demise, the Security Council itself collapsed, and states that the Security Council cannot have a real community of nations with Rule IV in place, again a claim that has been refuted by our own august standing,

Further rejecting SC#98’s ridiculous claim that the Security Council’s activity was only held up by the very short-lived and ultimately inconsequential Third Wall Bloc, that, hilariously, SC#98 implies to have collapsed at most 2.5 months following its announcement of its presence in international forums. That clause in SC#98 proceeds to make the suspect claim that the loss in activity sparked by the Third Walled Bloc was somehow recovered by Topid’s passing of “Condemn Unknown”, a claim that should have been elucidated further, as the frequency of resolutions passed did not significantly change prior to and after the passing of “Condemn Unknown”,

Believing that Topid’s “Condemn Unknown”, which SC#98 specifically commends the nation for, flies in the face of modern Security Council tradition not to condemn nations or regions for forum destruction, as it would be better to ignore them and not give the publicity,

Seeking to rid the Security Council of the celebrations of the Third Walled Bloc and “Condemn Unknown” contained in the text of SC#98,

Understanding Topid’s Security Council history to have been occasionally detrimental (though this by no means detracts from their ultimate worth as a nation), including through their passing of “Condemn NAZI EUROPE”, a resolution which led to an outright ban on resolutions condemning regions or nations for an ideology they believe in, and which Topid would later embarassedly apologize for; and their passing of “Condemn Unknown” for forum destruction, expressing a sentiment that is not supported by the Security Council today,

Not particularly impressed by the other resolutions from Topid’s early history in the Security Council, which were of a lower quality than those by other pioneers, containing far less concrete evidence than other resolutions,

Recognizing that the sections of SC#98 not otherwise refuted here are merely a mention of a liberation Topid drafted, and a vague reference to work in General Assembly,

Concluding that Topid is still a respectable and commendable resolution, but their description of Topid as a pioneer of the Security Council ended up being grossly exaggerated and premature, as much of their work has since been rejected by future generations of the Security Council community,

Strongly recommending a replacement for SC#98 be drafted,

Hereby repeals SC#98 “Commend Topid”.


A few notes:

1) Players like Unibot will come in and try to "correct" my argument against the Third Walled Bloc and the fight against rule IV. Know that I've heard their arguments, and believe that history is not on their side. Rule IV clearly did not ruin the SC's ability to function as a community.
2) This repeal is NOT for the poor quality of SC#98 (although it is very poorly-written), and is not to suggest that Topid isn't commendable. Rather, SC#98 makes some BS claims and is a relic of an archaic understanding of the SC that does not persist today. It lionizes Topid's involvement in the SC to a highly skeptical degree.
3) Some of you may be mad at me for mentioning Unibot in this proposal. I'm stilling considering cutting it out, but he did actually do those things prior to his end. I think that it should not be a problem because repeal's don't create badges (if it were in a commendation it would be promoting him b/c of the badge).
4) Again, I suggest a replacement for his region-building work, as it is not my intent to slander Topid or suggest he doesn't deserve commendation (rather, his current commendation shouldn't remain for other reasons). If no one else is willing, I'd be happy to assist in that process.


Thanks for your suggestions in advance.
Last edited by Goobergunchia on Tue May 31, 2022 9:31 am, edited 27 times in total.

User avatar
Ikania
Senator
 
Posts: 3623
Founded: Jun 28, 2013
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Ikania » Tue May 10, 2022 2:06 pm

I'm not well versed enough in the rules to give any real recommendations, but this is generally very well-written - I only hope Topid would eventually be compensated with a better commendation.

But, as you did mention, there is the subject of Unibot. I don't think I could vote for a resolution in good conscience, even a repeal, that credits him for anything. Omit that and I for one would be happy to support it.
Ike Speardane
Conductor, Grand Central, 2016
Delegate, Nesapo, 2013-16
Proud member of The Grey Wardens and citizen of The League. Two-time Defendervision winner.
NSG Senate veteran. Knuckle-dragging fuckstick from a backwater GCR. #SPRDNZ
Ask for my business card: Ike#3548
СЛАВА УКРАЇНІ

User avatar
Bormiar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1265
Founded: Mar 25, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Bormiar » Tue May 10, 2022 2:10 pm

Ikania wrote:But, as you did mention, there is the subject of Unibot. I don't think I could vote for a resolution in good conscience, even a repeal, that credits him for anything. Omit that and I for one would be happy to support it.


Probably for the best. It gives me a weird feeling in my stomach acting like it did not happen, but I see why we can't be crediting him for these things.

User avatar
Hulldom
Diplomat
 
Posts: 867
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hulldom » Tue May 10, 2022 2:37 pm

Would the “slightly embarrassed” clause even be legal?

Edit: also “primarily contributed to by
Last edited by Hulldom on Tue May 10, 2022 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TNP Minister of Foreign Affairs

User avatar
Madjack
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 161
Founded: Aug 16, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Madjack » Tue May 10, 2022 2:41 pm

Bormiar wrote:4) Again, I suggest a replacement for his region-building work, as it is not my intent to slander Topid or suggest he doesn't deserve commendation

Can I be the first to suggest that Topid isn't actually commendable, looking at the collective body of his work across his career in nationstates? For as many successes as some may claim for him, those 'successes' tend to die pretty quick deaths once Topid decides they're no longer useful or necessary or going in a direction they disagree with, regardless of what anyone more active at the time might wish to do with them.
Definitely not The Notorious Mad Jack, despite being almost as smart and handsome as I am.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10374
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Tue May 10, 2022 2:43 pm

The argument of this repeal's first few clauses is simply that Unibot (and others) did more work in the Security Council and the region named after it than Topid, who was Commended for their work, did. These are statements of fact, not opinion, about Unibot - and by extension about Topid. Ergo, fair game.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much

User avatar
Fachumonn
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Fachumonn » Tue May 10, 2022 3:59 pm

I don't think the "slightly embarrassed" clause is legal.

Also, won't approve without a replace ready.


WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His/They/Them/Their | RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent, Leans Defender

User avatar
Ikania
Senator
 
Posts: 3623
Founded: Jun 28, 2013
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Ikania » Tue May 10, 2022 5:03 pm

Tinhampton wrote:The argument of this repeal's first few clauses is simply that Unibot (and others) did more work in the Security Council and the region named after it than Topid, who was Commended for their work, did. These are statements of fact, not opinion, about Unibot - and by extension about Topid. Ergo, fair game.

Two words: damnatio memoriae.
Ike Speardane
Conductor, Grand Central, 2016
Delegate, Nesapo, 2013-16
Proud member of The Grey Wardens and citizen of The League. Two-time Defendervision winner.
NSG Senate veteran. Knuckle-dragging fuckstick from a backwater GCR. #SPRDNZ
Ask for my business card: Ike#3548
СЛАВА УКРАЇНІ

User avatar
Bormiar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1265
Founded: Mar 25, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Bormiar » Tue May 10, 2022 6:19 pm

Three points.

On Legality — The "Slightly embarrassed" clause is making a point about Rule 2: it's really not that bad. If I can say all this, what did they really have to complain about? Because I truly believe that nothing in that clause are illegal per the text of rule 2a ("Proposals cannot refer to the game, or events or actions in it, as part of a game.") and 2b ("Proposals cannot reference the "real world" outside of NationStates."). The clause states that there are nations designated to adjudicate ("moderate") on the legality of proposals per Security Council by-laws. There is nothing in the clause which states or even implies that NationStates is a game. In short, it does not break the fourth wall.

On Commendability — I absolutely sympathize with Madjack's belief that Topid is not commendable due to their mercurial and indecisive nature and how that might've affected many of his projects (e.g. Pacifica). Additionally, I do not want to be bogged down by voters like Fachumonn who believe that the lack of replacement somehow invalidates this proposal, because SC#98 is garbage and needs to go whether there's a replacement or not. Finally, the draft gives no strong evidence for or against the commendability of Topid, and does not attempt to— his commendability is not the topic of conversation. As such, I have removed the statements in the proposal which stated that Topid is commendable (please tell me if I missed anything). However, I still suggest the possibility of a replacement so as to soften the blow of the resolution and its tone against Topid. Rather, the attack should feel strongest against Mahaj and his writing.

On Unibot — I believed that it was best to mention Unibot in the first proposal because it actually did happen, and people should at least know that if wasn't just Sedge and AMOM. However, removing him does not constitute revision of facts because I don't state that AMOM and Sedge were the only contributors. Additionally, Unibot is only barely relevant to the draft. He's just another example to show how Topid isn't quite so special as SC#98 suggests. As such, Unibot goes.




With that in mind, here's draft 2.

The Security Council,

Recognizing Topid as an impressive nation, but more so for their region-building efforts than for their work in the Security Council,

Conceding that Topid was indeed an early pioneer of the Security Council, but arguing that their contributions were sparse compared to those of other participants like Naivetry, Sedgistan, and A Mean Old Man, none of which received commendation solely for their Security Council work, as Topid did,

Noting that this disparity in contributions extends to The Security Council, the region which SC#98 commends Topid for founding, as said region’s drafting threads were primarily contributed to by nations like Sedgistan, and A Mean Old Man,

Slightly embarrassed by the early crusade against Security Council Rule IV (renamed to Rule 2 in recent years), which stipulates that proposals mentioning events which did not truly occur in this reality must be removed by designated moderation nations. They believed that this would shut out condemnations and commendations for those who have participated in subsections of NationStates such as raiding and defending, but in fact the reverse came to pass, with those subcultures enjoying consistent and disproportional dominance in the SC. The hysteria of the early Security Council and groups such as Topid’s region has since been refuted by history,

Noting that The Security Council’s World Factbook Entry to this day arrogantly claims that with the region’s demise, the Security Council itself collapsed, and states that the Security Council cannot have a real community of nations with Rule IV in place, again a claim that has been refuted by our own august standing,

Further rejecting SC#98’s ridiculous claim that the Security Council’s activity was only held up by the very short-lived and ultimately inconsequential Third Wall Bloc, that, hilariously, SC#98 implies to have collapsed at most 2.5 months following its announcement of its presence in international forums. That clause in SC#98 proceeds to make the suspect claim that the loss in activity sparked by the Third Walled Bloc was somehow recovered by Topid’s passing of “Condemn Unknown”, a claim that should have been elucidated further, as the frequency of resolutions passed did not significantly change prior to and after the passing of “Condemn Unknown”,

Believing that Topid’s “Condemn Unknown”, which SC#98 specifically commends the nation for, flies in the face of modern Security Council tradition not to condemn nations or regions for forum destruction, as it would be better to ignore them and not give them publicity,

Seeking to rid the Security Council of the celebrations of the Third Walled Bloc and “Condemn Unknown” contained in the text of SC#98,

Understanding Topid’s Security Council history to have been occasionally detrimental (though this by no means detracts from their ultimate worth as a nation), including through their passing of “Condemn NAZI EUROPE”, a resolution which led to an outright ban on proposals condemning regions or nations for an ideology they believe in, and which Topid would later embarassedly apologize for; and their passing of “Condemn Unknown” for forum destruction, expressing a sentiment that is not supported by the Security Council today,

Not particularly impressed by the other resolutions from Topid’s early history in the Security Council, which were of a lower quality than those by other pioneers, containing far less concrete evidence than other resolutions,

Recognizing that the sections of SC#98 not otherwise refuted here are merely a mention of a liberation Topid drafted, and a vague reference to work in General Assembly,

Concluding that Topid is still a respectable nominee, but their description of Topid as a pioneer of the Security Council ended up being grossly exaggerated and premature, as much of their work has since been rejected by future generations of the Security Council community,

Recommending that a replacement for “Commend Topid” be considered in the future,

Hereby repeals SC#98 “Commend Topid”.
Last edited by Bormiar on Tue May 10, 2022 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Thousand Branches
Diplomat
 
Posts: 711
Founded: Jun 03, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Thousand Branches » Tue May 10, 2022 6:57 pm

Frankly, I still think repeals should be passed with the consent of the nominee in cases like these. If topid does not want a repeal, we should not deliver one
|| Aramantha Calendula ||
○•○ Writer, editor, and World Assembly fanatic ○•○
•○• Proud member of House Elegarth •○•
○•○ Telegram or message me on discord at Aramantha#4290 for writing or editing help ○•○
•○• Failed General Assembly Resolutions Archive || The Grand (Newspaper Archive) •○•
○•○ Have an awesome day you! ○•○

User avatar
Bormiar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1265
Founded: Mar 25, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Bormiar » Tue May 10, 2022 7:14 pm

Thousand Branches wrote:Frankly, I still think repeals should be passed with the consent of the nominee in cases like these. If topid does not want a repeal, we should not deliver one

I considered that, but I have a different argument.

If SC#98 were proposed today, albeit spruced up with some snazzy modern writing, would you vote for? I doubt it.

SC#98 commends Topid for something he probably didn't do (i.e. revived the SC), aggrandizes his overall achievement in the WA, and ultimately, if you were to look at Topid's history through nothing but the lens of his contributions stated in SC#98, he doesn't look all that commendable at all. It's not up to Topid whether this repeal passes for the same reason Imperium Anglorum can't demand that his commendation states that he owns the GA and is the best GA author that will ever exist. Commendations must be supported by not only the nominee but also by the Security Council that drafts, passes, and ultimately argues for the commendation. It is my argument that the Security Council should not support SC#98 for the reasons listed in the repeal, and that's for the most part independent of Topid's opinion.*

I'm glad that you bring this up though, as I think many may misinterpret this proposal as a repeal for poor quality, like in the case of Macedon or the proposed R&Rs of Commend Kandarin. It is not. Rather, I propose we repeal "Commend Topid" because it inaccurately lionizes Topid's contributions to the SC and states opinions on Rule IV and condemning for forum destruction that should never have been made by the Security Council.

Hope that clears things up and / or convinces you. :)

* I don't know what Topid thinks of this draft. I did not ask, because, for the reasons above, it's not necessary to the passing of the repeal that Topid supports it.

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 3397
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Honeydewistania » Tue May 10, 2022 7:18 pm

Thousand Branches wrote:Frankly, I still think repeals should be passed with the consent of the nominee in cases like these. If topid does not want a repeal, we should not deliver one

I disagree here. It’s not like Commend Kuriko where it’s arguing that it’s poorly written, it’s arguing that the actions listed are not noteworthy like Repeal Condemn Koth or Repeal Commend Halo. If a repeal argued that a nominee was not that worthy, then I don’t think the recipient’s opinion really matters


she/her
Represented by Benji Schubert Hepperle in the WA


[the] ice age [is] coming

User avatar
Bormiar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1265
Founded: Mar 25, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Bormiar » Tue May 10, 2022 7:20 pm

I guess another way of saying it would be that the Security Council believed that SC#98 was commendable at the time of its passing, but is re-evaluating that now. Topid has no more a say now than they did back when SC#98 was initially passed.

User avatar
RiderSyl
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6088
Founded: Jan 16, 2014
Mother Knows Best State

Postby RiderSyl » Tue May 10, 2022 9:24 pm

Hiya Bormiar. Some constructive feedback - The tone of the proposal is needlessly emotionally charged in spots

The spots I'm talking about:
- The SC being "slightly embarrassed" by Topid's anti-Rule 2 stuff
- The description of the anti-Rule 2 stuff as "hysteria"
- The use of the adjectives "arrogantly", "ridiculous", "hilariously", and "embarassedly"

It's not really a big deal, but these spots make your draft come across just a tad unprofessional and oddly personal, and I feel like that's not your intent.
Last edited by RiderSyl on Tue May 10, 2022 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
R.I.P. Dyakovo
Sylvia Montresor

Ashmoria
Karpathos
~ You may think I’m small, but I have a universe inside my mind. ~

User avatar
Dumoflage
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: May 07, 2021
Anarchy

Postby Dumoflage » Tue May 10, 2022 9:25 pm

Opposed. This could degrade the value of my Topid card.

User avatar
Thousand Branches
Diplomat
 
Posts: 711
Founded: Jun 03, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Thousand Branches » Tue May 10, 2022 9:32 pm

Honeydewistania wrote:
Thousand Branches wrote:Frankly, I still think repeals should be passed with the consent of the nominee in cases like these. If topid does not want a repeal, we should not deliver one

I disagree here. It’s not like Commend Kuriko where it’s arguing that it’s poorly written, it’s arguing that the actions listed are not noteworthy like Repeal Condemn Koth or Repeal Commend Halo. If a repeal argued that a nominee was not that worthy, then I don’t think the recipient’s opinion really matters

If I’m being 100% honest, I hated Repeal Commend Halo. Hated it. And he got commended again later so clearly his actions were in fact noteworthy. By now I also disagree with Commend Koth, given that they’re also very clearly condemnable, and should’ve been consulted first.
|| Aramantha Calendula ||
○•○ Writer, editor, and World Assembly fanatic ○•○
•○• Proud member of House Elegarth •○•
○•○ Telegram or message me on discord at Aramantha#4290 for writing or editing help ○•○
•○• Failed General Assembly Resolutions Archive || The Grand (Newspaper Archive) •○•
○•○ Have an awesome day you! ○•○

User avatar
Refuge Isle
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1079
Founded: Dec 14, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Refuge Isle » Tue May 10, 2022 10:43 pm

Thousand Branches wrote:Frankly, I still think repeals should be passed with the consent of the nominee in cases like these.

There will never be a time when this is going to be the case.
Thousand Branches wrote: By now I also disagree with Commend Koth, given that they’re also very clearly condemnable, and should’ve been consulted first.

That's probably how politics work.

Ikania wrote:My brother in Christ, please stop posting.

User avatar
RiderSyl
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6088
Founded: Jan 16, 2014
Mother Knows Best State

Postby RiderSyl » Tue May 10, 2022 11:29 pm

Refuge Isle wrote:
Thousand Branches wrote: By now I also disagree with Commend Koth, given that they’re also very clearly condemnable, and should’ve been consulted first.

That's probably how politics work.

Should it be?
R.I.P. Dyakovo
Sylvia Montresor

Ashmoria
Karpathos
~ You may think I’m small, but I have a universe inside my mind. ~

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 31929
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Wed May 11, 2022 12:48 am

I am not providing a ruling on this, as my name is all over this - but the "Slightly embarrassed by" clause and potentially some of the other rules references are likely illegal; such bald reference to the rules has not typically been allowed under the very rules you're citing. Please make sure you get an official ruling prior to submitting.

On the text, I think some of the narrative on the Rule 4 introduction / 3WB is harsh; it's hard to judge the situation 12 years on. The SC was very different in 2010 - only recently introduced, regularly low-level trolled by bitter GA players who took every opportunity to argue for the SC to be shut down / restricted from doing anything they disliked. The introduction of Rule 4 was really badly handled (for which I don't blame Ardchoille; she was unfairly lumbered with moderating something she had no real interest in or great understanding of) and resulted in the fledgling SC community feeling like they'd just had the most exciting addition to the game in forever taken away from them.

While SCers are now accustomed to being able to write pretty much anything in a proposal, it took months for it to become clear what kind of language was allowed - initially it seemed like everything had to be couched in flowery full-on RP language. Also, the permissiveness that evolved over later years wasn't there initially with some GP-specific language - it took five years of behind the scenes discussion before some mods accepted that allowing the word "feeder" in SC proposal text wouldn't cause the sky to fall in.

The 3WB at the time was momentous - no-one else had ever shut down the WA before, and while it obviously failed in its main goal, it ensured staff continued to engage with SCers to discuss and clarify Rule 4 so that it became (relatively) workable for authors going forwards. That would have happened anyway, but probably not with the same urgency.

All the 3WB stuff is a bit out of place anyways, as that's barely cited in Topid's Commendation. Topid was the one who first passed a resolution post 3WB, and as one of the most anti-Rule 4 players around, it signified an acceptance by the SC community that Rule 4 was here to stay, and we had to live with it. Yes, it didn't open a floodgate to further resolutions immediately afterwards, but that's because most SCers didn't have much in the works until after that passed.

Don't take that as opposition to the proposal concept as a whole. Like anything "quantity over quality" Mahaj wrote, the text of Commend Topid is garbage.

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6603
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Unibot III » Wed May 11, 2022 3:34 am

My thoughts are similar to Sedge - I agree with everything he said. I’m a bit taken aback by the resolution’s text — Rule IV was a pretty serious crisis at the time, 3WB was a significant boycott of the WA, the SC didn’t function for most of the summer, and Topid was instrumental in ending the boycott as he was urging reconciliation between GP and Moderation.

I think the author is assuming I’m an opponent of Rule IV or that I’m bitter about it or something… I never wrote a resolution *before* or after Rule IV that would contravene it.

My resistance to Rule IV was about how it would be applied, how the rule was introduced, and how moderation responded. My fear was that if the rule was too stringent, it would limit the capacity of the WASC to interact with *all* parts of NS - the tougher the rule, the clunkier the language with regards to Gameplay, NS Sports, NS General etc. I also believed that a “hard” rule, while having the goal of making WASC comprehendible to general readership, would result in the opposite: unclear, vague language that wasn’t as easy to follow. Examples would be resolutions that took paragraphs to explain what a puppet was without saying puppet, or clumsily trying to talk about feeders without saying feeders, or talk of deities in lieu of admins. I wanted the SC to be open to all of NS, and I feared that a really tough standard for Rule IV would close the SC off.

Sedge was selected as an moderator around that time (at my recommendation!) and he was the kind of level headed player with GP experience we needed to cool the drama. Rule IV has over time been moderated to a point that it most certainly resembles what the “SC gang” (Me/Sedge/Topid & others) were arguing for from the very beginning.

My lasting regret is that the fires we raged (and I’m responsible for that) in 2010, stunted the development of a fledging authorship community in the WASC. I’m a believer that community requires some element of stakeholdership - which is why the introduction of R4 without consultation blew the doors off the SC (As an aside, many of the crabby GAers that poisoned the R4 debate were crabby NSUNers who remained angry at their game basically being wiped by the admin without consulting them in 2008.) There is no equivalent of IDU, AO, or Dharma, for the WASC today. It’s hardly the main focus for anyone or any WA Organization. There’s little to no internal culture or mythos. The GA is a community. The SC simply limped on after 2010 as a side hustle for Gameplayers and GA Authors. I believe Topid saw what was happening before the rest of us did, which was why he was pushing for reconciliation and was trying to bring us together because while we were certainly hurt by Rule IV, we’d be even more hurt to learn that we were actively salting the earth and stopping a community from growing out of the SC.

I also regret that this thread, which should be about Topid, has become about me. :p Topid was always a wonderful contributor — in the SC, in TSP, in Pacifica. He helped make the game interesting and he had a big heart. I’m neutral on a R&R effort with the caveat that I maintain reservations that politics may get in the way of the replacement’s passage: whether those politics are about me (please no!), or the SC, or about whether his advocacy to free The Pacific is commendable. It’s my belief that a poorly written but well deserved commendation is better than a well-deserved commendation that is never passed.

EDIT: I’ll add that I think repealing someone’s commendation because ‘WA Opinion’ has changed on whether to acknowledge forum destruction or not is dumb. Topid opposed forum destruction. The resolution was against forum destruction. We’re all still against forum destruction. I’ll also note that there has been no formal vote in the Security Council to decide whether forum destruction should or should not be acknowledged by the Security Council. A few key players have decided on behalf of everyone else to not acknowledge forum destruction in the Security Council. We could use the WASC to implement a new version of COPS. One could also make the argument that “Condemn Unknown” worked… Unknown made a concerted effort to rehabilitate.

I also don’t remember whether I influenced the text of Commend Topid, like the author contends. Don’t have a foggy clue. Topid was a friend, so I’d likely have chimed in. But the language doesn’t look like mine - I hate “puppet states” as a phrase and I find the clauses breeze over his SC contribution too much. Topid was here from the very beginning, setting up an IRC channel and trying to build a common space for authors.
Last edited by Unibot III on Wed May 11, 2022 4:08 am, edited 5 times in total.
[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 TRR | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // Collected works // The Gameplay Alignment Test //
Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78

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

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10374
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Wed May 11, 2022 5:13 am

Dumoflage wrote:Opposed. This could degrade the value of my Topid card.

C&C badges are not retroactively added or removed onto cards after their initial inscription: Cassadaigua.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much

User avatar
Gorundu
Envoy
 
Posts: 291
Founded: May 02, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Gorundu » Wed May 11, 2022 6:02 am

RiderSyl wrote:
Refuge Isle wrote:That's probably how politics work.

Should it be?

Yes, that's why it's politics, not a garden party. People aren't here to make everyone happy, they're here to achieve their goals.
Former Minister of Communications & Minister of World Assembly Affairs of The North Pacific

Badge hunter (x3)
Now exclusively authors repeals to destroy the hard work of others
Hasn't lurked in the GA forums for a long time
Will maybe one day make an IC WA Ambassador
Author of GA#485, GA#516, SC#337 and the other one we don't talk about
Posts do not represent my region's views unless stated otherwise.

User avatar
Dumoflage
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: May 07, 2021
Anarchy

Postby Dumoflage » Wed May 11, 2022 7:38 am

Tinhampton wrote:
Dumoflage wrote:Opposed. This could degrade the value of my Topid card.

C&C badges are not retroactively added or removed onto cards after their initial inscription: Cassadaigua.

Wow what a relief!

User avatar
Bormiar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1265
Founded: Mar 25, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Bormiar » Wed May 11, 2022 2:22 pm

First off, thanks to RiderSyl for suggesting a tone shift and providing the specific examples. Will do. Also, I recommend that Thousand Branches re-read the heaping trashfire that was commend Halo, back when TUMS had plenty of people suggesting fixes and he rushed it to vote anyways.

Thank you, Sedge and Unibot, for your detailed posts. I don't think, however, that we're not really speaking on the same wavelengths. My intended (though perhaps not properly stated) argument against 3WB is that it's doubtful it had any lasting legacy on the SC, and that the Security Council today would disagree with the points made against Rule IV or in favor of condemning for forum destruction. This says nothing about how important Topid and the 3WB were to their community back then. Unfortunately, however, as Unibot argues, Rule IV destroyed any semblance of that community in SC, leaving only a shallow husk for the last ten years, and us GPers and GAers don't believe that SC#98's continued celebration of the 3WB does not seem like something the modern SC should support. I'm not trying to debate with you on the actual influence or fairness of the 3WB at the time of its existence— I was not there. Rather I think that it did not have the influence stated at the time (Rule IV => no community) and don't believe that the SC should continue to support the perspectives of its ancestors as implied in SC#98, no matter how reasonable the 3WB seemed at the time.

As for whether or not the 3WB is very relevant to SC#98, I found upon reading it (and since re-reading it) that it was, at least implicitly, along with Condemn Unknown. There's really not much in the proposal for me to talk about though. I think that in my third draft I'll be shortening mentions to Rule IV and probably add a clause on quality. Plus I'll see if there's anything wrong with the GA clause.

Does that argument seem clearer to you?

I have more an issue with a few specific aspects of Unibot's post than I do with Sedge's. First, no, I don't think you're opposed to Rule IV, though I don't see how it's relevant to anything I've said or the text of the proposal.

As for the SC's community, while I'd conceded that it seems to have a weaker one than the GA, it's not due to Rule IV. Frankly, I can't see how you could argue it was because of Rule IV when you had previously argued that Rule IV was weakened to the point of being what your group had intended. The SC has not had such a community because by nature one would have to have a great deal of experience in other areas of NS to write a good draft. Nonetheless, in the last few years there's been a push towards making drafting more communal, mainly in TWP, TRR, TNP, WALL, Europeia, and TSP. Additionally, co-authorship seems to be on the rise. Finally, I would consider myself almost purely a Security Council player, and I think others (e.g. Kuriko) would consider themselves SC players even if that's not the only thing they do.

As for the forum destruction, "Condemn Unknown" might've worked — I'll give you that — but SC#98 treats the resolution as though it was some sort of SC-changing event in terms of the precedent it supposedly set, and that is simply not the case. There's only been (I think) one other case of that happening, and it's incredibly controversial and kind of a mess. There was no vote (not that there could have been, declarations are too new), but I think the vast majority of the SC views condemnations as almost-strictly badges of honor, and has shifted to offensive liberations for punishment.

And, lastly, don't worry, neither this thread nor the resolution have become about you. We've had a small hiccup because of something you did six years ago and we needed to address whether it was so horrible that you can no longer even be mentioned in a Security Council resolution. If I were you, I would not be drawing attention to yourself in this instance :P. I don't remember saying that you influenced the drafting (though I certainly could see that being the case) and I don't think it's too relevant though.

However, I am very grateful for both of your posts, Unibot and Sedge. I will be writing a third draft to fix the issues detailed above (such as the tone issue per Ridersyl), to clarify / solidify my argument, and to be more conciliatory to the points made by the two of you.
Last edited by Bormiar on Fri May 20, 2022 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Outer Sparta
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13924
Founded: Dec 26, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Outer Sparta » Wed May 11, 2022 3:50 pm

Support in principle, we'll have to see how a potential replacement would come up but the draft makes good arguments for the repeal.
I don't stand with Ukraine. I don't stand with Russia. I don't stand with the US, NATO, or EU. I stand with the innocent civilians being caught in the crossfire while the politicians, the media, and weapons manufacturers continue to stoke division and conflict in their geopolitical chess games and treat the people of Ukraine as mere pawns. Zelensky is a corrupt, opportunist oligarchic politician who is not fit to lead Ukraine through anything and wants to inflate his own ego and offshore accounts.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Security Council

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Husaringen

Advertisement

Remove ads