[DRAFT] Against Security Council Political Conflict

[Venusian Soviets]

The Security Council,

KNOWING that the Security Council's purpose is to promote interregional peace.

NOTING that due to many regions being based on political ideologies, political conflict is also often interregional conflict, and vice versa.

BELIEVING that the following actions are use of the Security Council for political conflict:

Supporting/proposing commendations or opposing condemnations because of ideological agreement with the nominee
Supporting/proposing condemnations or opposing commendations because of ideological disagreement with the nominee
Voting for or against liberations based on the ideology of the region or delegate
Supporting/proposing declarations in favor of or against of a particular ideology
Supporting/opposing any Security Council resolution due to agreement or disagreement with the ideology of the proposer

RECOGNIZING that since political conflict is often interregional conflict, and that the Security Council was created to promote interregional peace, use of the Security Council for political conflict runs counter to the Security Council's mission.

HEREBY declares that the Security Council is against any use of the Security Council for political conflict.

[Quebecshire]

No.

This would be better labelled "[COMPLAINT] Too much politics in my political simulator!"

"Spreading interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary" is a cool mission statement and all, but it's hardly objective. "Peace and goodwill" is not achievable via inaction - I'm unsure of your background, but if this is in relation to recent anti-raider movements in the SC, I would argue the political diminishment of all things raider advances peace and goodwill, if anything. Some would disagree, and that's politics.

A separate point regarding the writing: This is extremely vague and has a lot of holes in it (for example, it makes no exceptions, and while I'm absolutely certain this wasn't your intent, it would technically say we shouldn't oppose proposals written by fascists or etc - I'd agree it shouldn't be need to be said since that's an OOC issue, but when we have stuff like SC 358 on the books, which this proposal contradicts, it gets weird).

[Venusian Soviets]

No.

This would be better labelled "[COMPLAINT] Too much politics in my political simulator!"

"Spreading interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary" is a cool mission statement and all, but it's hardly objective. "Peace and goodwill" is not achievable via inaction - I'm unsure of your background, but if this is in relation to recent anti-raider movements in the SC, I would argue the political diminishment of all things raider advances peace and goodwill, if anything. Some would disagree, and that's politics.

A separate point regarding the writing: This is extremely vague and has a lot of holes in it (for example, it makes no exceptions, and while I'm absolutely certain this wasn't your intent, it would technically say we shouldn't oppose proposals written by fascists or etc - I'd agree it shouldn't be need to be said since that's an OOC issue, but when we have stuff like SC 358 on the books, which this proposal contradicts, it gets weird).

It was more a response because I had heard about commendations being refused due to disagreements in ideology. Good point, though!

[Quebecshire]

It was more a response because I had heard about commendations being refused due to disagreements in ideology. Good point, though!

Unfortunately that's the name of the game... politics will always be an issue, because peoples' political moves will either be celebrated or decried, and lead to arguments about whether or not that harms their eligibility. Two commendations were passed this year (Commend Karputsk and Commend Tim-Opolis) which would have been much harder (if not impossible) to pass in years prior due to political controversy because of past actions of the nominees... there's plenty more examples, and of repeals, such as the repeals of Commend Krulltopia (repeal) and Commend A Mean Old Man (repeal) due to a coup in Lazarus in 2015 that was widely criticized... it's also hard to know when the line between "acceptable scrutinty of commendabilty (or condemnability)" and "ideology disputes" is really drawn, if there even is one.

In other words, I understand your frustration/intent, but it's fairly incompatible with the concept of the Security Council, and very implausible.

[RiderSyl]

This would be better labelled "[COMPLAINT] Too much politics in my political simulator!"

Responding to justifiable criticisms of excessive partisanship with "politics in my political simulator???" will never not come off as condescending poppycock.

Kinda want to support this out of morbid curiousity, to watch how many people balk at the concept of the SC being less divided.

[Juansonia]

This would be better labelled "[COMPLAINT] Too much politics in my political simulator!"

Responding to justifiable criticisms of excessive partisanship with "politics in my political simulator???" will never not come off as condescending poppycock.

Kinda want to support this out of morbid curiousity, to watch how many people balk at the concept of the SC being less divided.

I also am curious about whether this will kill the SC, or whether the SC will kill it.

[Comfed]

Kinda want to support this out of morbid curiousity, to watch how many people balk at the concept of the SC being less divided.

What is fundamentally wrong about a divided SC? Taking political positions would strike me as the purpose of the institution, so obviously these will be contested.

[Quebecshire]

Kinda want to support this out of morbid curiousity, to watch how many people balk at the concept of the SC being less divided.

What is fundamentally wrong about a divided SC? Taking political positions would strike me as the purpose of the institution, so obviously these will be contested.

Nothing is wrong with that. The SC has always been divided, I don't really buy that it's any more divided than normal because of some people being upset about a few resolutions this year.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

What is fundamentally wrong about a divided SC? Taking political positions would strike me as the purpose of the institution, so obviously these will be contested.

Nothing is wrong with that. The SC has always been divided, I don't really buy that it's any more divided than normal because of some people being upset about a few resolutions this year.

True. In all the years I’ve been involved in the SC there has always been some sort of division - the current situation is no worse or no better than it has been in the past.

This is a political simulator - the OP’s draft is dead in the water because of that as far as I’m concerned.

[RiderSyl]

Comfed misconstrues "a less divided SC" as "a completely undivided SC", letting Quebec and BBD break out the classic excuses people make to oppose the idea of making things less awful for everyone. The SC stands for Security Council, not Social Conservatives, so you can stop roleplaying as them.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Comfed misconstrues "a less divided SC" as "a completely undivided SC", letting Quebec and BBD break out the classic excuses people make to oppose the idea of making things less awful for everyone. The SC stands for Security Council, not Social Conservatives, so you can stop roleplaying as them.

All I said was that the situation, in my opinion, hadn’t changed in the years I’ve been involved in the SC. How you interpret that to mean I think things shouldn’t change is beyond me.

Hey, but keep pushing that agenda (whatever it is) Syl.

[RiderSyl]

All I said was that the situation, in my opinion, hadn’t changed in the years I’ve been involved in the SC.

That's half of what you said.

How you interpret that to mean I think things shouldn’t change is beyond me.

Because that's not the part I reacted to.
This is:

This is a political simulator - the OP’s draft is dead in the water because of that as far as I’m concerned.

If my reaction to "This is a political simulator", as a counter-argument to the OP's draft, is still beyond you, read what I wrote about that counter-argument in a response to Quebecshire on this same page.

Hey, but keep pushing that agenda (whatever it is) Syl.

I will.

[Numero Capitan]

This proposal amounts (fairly explicitly) to removing ideology from any voting or writing decision whatsoever.

We may as well let each region be represented by a fruit or vegetable of choice, with their vote decided by a coin flip simulator. A very peaceful way of discussing nothing, voting for no reason and giving the WA zero purpose at all.

"Full support. #gateswasright"


Syl, if you're legitimately worried about the quality of debate and amount of toxicity on the forums, mirrors are cheap

[RiderSyl]

This proposal amounts (fairly explicitly) to removing ideology from any voting or writing decision whatsoever.

No it doesn't. It's a Declaration. It doesn't have the power to do that.

We may as well let each region be represented by a fruit or vegetable of choice, with their vote decided by a coin flip simulator. A very peaceful way of discussing nothing, voting for no reason and giving the WA zero purpose at all.

Having less conflict doesn't remove all conflict.

Syl, if you're legitimately worried about the quality of debate and amount of toxicity on the forums, mirrors are cheap

You're no better.

[Outer Sparta]

The author has not made any effort to improve their declaration and it's largely something rendered moot by the very mechanics of SC politicking.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

If my reaction to "This is a political simulator", as a counter-argument to the OP's draft, is still beyond you, read what I wrote about that counter-argument in a response to Quebecshire on this same page.

Nothing you could write Syl would be beyond me.

[RiderSyl]

If my reaction to "This is a political simulator", as a counter-argument to the OP's draft, is still beyond you, read what I wrote about that counter-argument in a response to Quebecshire on this same page.

Nothing you could write Syl would be beyond me.

Ya, I know.