NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Repeal "Commend Ransium"

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.
User avatar
The North Polish Union
Senator
 
Posts: 4513
Founded: Nov 13, 2012
Moralistic Democracy

[DRAFT] Repeal "Commend Ransium"

Postby The North Polish Union » Mon Dec 05, 2022 1:05 pm

The Security Council,

BELIEVING that Ransium has contributed greatly to many facets of the international community and that S.C. Res. No. 236 adequately sums up many of their accomplishments;

OBSERVING that when passing the recent S.C. Res. No. 425, the Security Council declared that "SC#236 mentions Souls’ involvement and leadership in numerous raiding organizations, though contending that their career in the multiverse is primarily viewed through their role in The Black Hawks specifically,"

CONFUSED that this assertion was made despite the fact that "Commend Ransium" makes no mention of "Souls" or "The Black Hawks", nor are any of the other claims made about S.C. No. 236 in S.C. No. 425 borne out by "Commend Ransium";

SADDENED that since S. C. Res. No. 425 has been permanently enshrined in the SC's records there is no way to rectify this confusion short of the withdrawal and reinstatement of Ransium's commendation;

CONVINCED that the Security Council should not permit such confusing claims to remain unchecked in its corpus;

HOPING that a future resolution will again commend Ransium while making clear their alleged connections to "Souls" and "The Black Hawks";

HEREBY repeals S.C. Res. No. 236 "Commend Ransium"
Minskiev wrote:You are GP's dross.
Petrovsegratsk wrote:NPU, I know your clearly a Polish nationalist, but wtf is up with your obssession with resurrecting the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?
The yoshin empire wrote:Grouping russians with slavs is like grouping germans with french , the two are so culturally different.

.
Balansujcie dopóki się da, a gdy się już nie da, podpalcie świat!
Author of S.C. Res. № 137
POLAND
STRONG!

User avatar
The North Polish Union
Senator
 
Posts: 4513
Founded: Nov 13, 2012
Moralistic Democracy

Postby The North Polish Union » Mon Dec 05, 2022 1:05 pm

-reserved-
Minskiev wrote:You are GP's dross.
Petrovsegratsk wrote:NPU, I know your clearly a Polish nationalist, but wtf is up with your obssession with resurrecting the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?
The yoshin empire wrote:Grouping russians with slavs is like grouping germans with french , the two are so culturally different.

.
Balansujcie dopóki się da, a gdy się już nie da, podpalcie świat!
Author of S.C. Res. № 137
POLAND
STRONG!

User avatar
The Ice States
Diplomat
 
Posts: 629
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Corporate Police State

Postby The Ice States » Mon Dec 05, 2022 1:08 pm

No.

User avatar
Hulldom
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1215
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Hulldom » Mon Dec 05, 2022 1:10 pm

Well, uh, this is certainly a choice.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Delegate, The North Pacific

User avatar
Bhang Bhang Duc
Senator
 
Posts: 4018
Founded: Dec 17, 2003
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Bhang Bhang Duc » Mon Dec 05, 2022 1:15 pm

Against. And you have not addressed the contents of “Commend Ransium” which would make your draft illegal.
Former Delegate of The West Pacific. Guardian (under many Delegates) of The West Pacific. TWP's Former Minister for World Assembly Affairs and former Security Council Advisor.

The West Pacific's Official Welshman, Astronomer and Old Fart
Pierconium wrote:I see Funk as an opportunistic manipulator that utilises the means available to him to reach his goals. In other words, a nation after my own heart.

RiderSyl wrote:If an enchantress made it so one raid could bring about world peace, Unibot would ask raiders to just sign a petition instead.

Sedgistan wrote:The SC has just has a spate of really shitty ones recently from Northumbria, his Watermelon fanboy…..

User avatar
Quebecshire
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1332
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Quebecshire » Mon Dec 05, 2022 1:20 pm

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Against. And you have not addressed the contents of “Commend Ransium” which would make your draft illegal.

Sweet irony :P

User avatar
The North Polish Union
Senator
 
Posts: 4513
Founded: Nov 13, 2012
Moralistic Democracy

Postby The North Polish Union » Mon Dec 05, 2022 1:30 pm

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Against. And you have not addressed the contents of “Commend Ransium” which would make your draft illegal.

The SC has irrevocably proclaimed that "Commend Ransium" deals with "Souls’ involvement and leadership in numerous raiding organizations, though contending that their career in the multiverse is primarily viewed through their role in The Black Hawks specifically,"

So since my draft focuses primarily on that, it does address the contents of “Commend Ransium”
Minskiev wrote:You are GP's dross.
Petrovsegratsk wrote:NPU, I know your clearly a Polish nationalist, but wtf is up with your obssession with resurrecting the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?
The yoshin empire wrote:Grouping russians with slavs is like grouping germans with french , the two are so culturally different.

.
Balansujcie dopóki się da, a gdy się już nie da, podpalcie świat!
Author of S.C. Res. № 137
POLAND
STRONG!

User avatar
Heidgaudr
Envoy
 
Posts: 348
Founded: Jun 25, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Heidgaudr » Mon Dec 05, 2022 1:34 pm

The North Polish Union wrote:
Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Against. And you have not addressed the contents of “Commend Ransium” which would make your draft illegal.

The SC has irrevocably proclaimed that "Commend Ransium" deals with "Souls’ involvement and leadership in numerous raiding organizations, though contending that their career in the multiverse is primarily viewed through their role in The Black Hawks specifically,"

So since my draft focuses primarily on that, it does address the contents of “Commend Ransium”

That's not how it works.
IC comments are from Amb. Asgeir Trelstad unless otherwise stated.
Factbooks: WA Staff | WA Agenda | Government | Religion | Demographics
Resolutions authed: GA#629, GA#638

User avatar
Lenlyvit
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1295
Founded: Feb 13, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Lenlyvit » Mon Dec 05, 2022 1:37 pm

The North Polish Union wrote:
Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Against. And you have not addressed the contents of “Commend Ransium” which would make your draft illegal.

The SC has irrevocably proclaimed that "Commend Ransium" deals with "Souls’ involvement and leadership in numerous raiding organizations, though contending that their career in the multiverse is primarily viewed through their role in The Black Hawks specifically,"

So since my draft focuses primarily on that, it does address the contents of “Commend Ransium”
Um, yeah that's not how it works. You need to adequately address the contents of the whole resolution, not just a tiny section of it. I'm firmly opposed to repealing Ransium's commendation, and I know the majority of the SC will be as well.

Edit: And looking more thoroughly, you haven't addressed the contents of Commend Ransium whatsoever. Have you read the SC rules? It might be a good idea to peruse them..
Last edited by Lenlyvit on Mon Dec 05, 2022 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
World Assembly Secretary-General

Founder of The Hole To Hide In (THTHI Discord)
Former three time Delegate of 10000 Islands

I've been commended by the Security Council. Author of 19 Security Council Resolutions.

User avatar
Outer Sparta
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14607
Founded: Dec 26, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Outer Sparta » Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:00 pm

Rather bold to repeal Ransium's commend, but I'll have to say no.
Last edited by Outer Sparta on Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.

User avatar
Comfed
Minister
 
Posts: 2031
Founded: Apr 09, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Comfed » Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:38 pm

Nice attempt at mentioning "Souls" and "The Black Hawks" as many times as you possibly can in this bizarre text.
Outer Sparta wrote:A haiku for a potato makes the world go... never mind.

User avatar
RiderSyl
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6309
Founded: Jan 16, 2014
Mother Knows Best State

Postby RiderSyl » Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:30 pm

I understand what you're mocking, NPU. I respect that you're mocking it. I just wish the way you were doing it was funnier than this.
R.I.P. Dyakovo
Sylvia Montresor

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

User avatar
Astrobolt
Envoy
 
Posts: 329
Founded: Jul 30, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Astrobolt » Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:45 pm

Are we still doing the minor spelling mistake bit?
Last edited by Astrobolt on Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
TITO Tactical Officer
XKI FA Secretary
Ambassador to the WA: Mr. Reede Tappe
In the WA IC, despite not being in it OOC.



Note: All views expressed are solely my own, and don't represent any region, organization or group unless stated otherwise.

For a detailed list of positions, and other things of note, click here.

User avatar
Wrapper
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 5993
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wrapper » Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:32 pm

Add a mention of how terrible Ransium is for writing my condemnation and I just might consider supporting this. :p

User avatar
Onionist Randosia
Envoy
 
Posts: 244
Founded: Mar 28, 2021
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Onionist Randosia » Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:14 pm

So... you are repealing a deserved commendation on the basis of a typo in another (and completely unrelated) resolution?

Nah.
Last edited by Onionist Randosia on Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The People's Onionist Republic of Onionist Randosia
Call me OR or Randosia - they/them pronouns - posts are OOC unless stated otherwise
Minister of Defense of Asterya
3x WA Delegate of The Union of Great Onionist Nations, now merged with UESR as Asterya (check us out!)
Founder and Administrator of InterLeft (check us out if you want your region to join a leftist alliance!)
Friendly neighbourhood ecosocialist who is obsessed with birds, boats, history and politics. In favour of socialism or market socialism, opposed to capitalism and corporatism. Pro-LGBT and abortion rights but against bigotry of any form. Proud environmentalist. I play the violin.
Sovetskiy Luk Navsegda!

User avatar
The North Polish Union
Senator
 
Posts: 4513
Founded: Nov 13, 2012
Moralistic Democracy

Postby The North Polish Union » Mon Dec 05, 2022 11:09 pm

Lenlyvit wrote:
The North Polish Union wrote:The SC has irrevocably proclaimed that "Commend Ransium" deals with "Souls’ involvement and leadership in numerous raiding organizations, though contending that their career in the multiverse is primarily viewed through their role in The Black Hawks specifically,"

So since my draft focuses primarily on that, it does address the contents of “Commend Ransium”
Um, yeah that's not how it works. You need to adequately address the contents of the whole resolution, not just a tiny section of it. I'm firmly opposed to repealing Ransium's commendation, and I know the majority of the SC will be as well.

Edit: And looking more thoroughly, you haven't addressed the contents of Commend Ransium whatsoever. Have you read the SC rules? It might be a good idea to peruse them..

Interestingly, when "Commend Ever-Wandering Souls" was repealed a number of individuals made the argument that repeals need not focus so heavily on the target, citing the repeals of "Commend Solorni" and "Condemn Jakker" in support of this. This makes an interesting philosophical distinction between those such as yourself who apparently believe a strong focus on the target is essential for legality, and those that don't.

In any case, I believe this draft (although it can be improved) does address the resolution its targeting, as I'll explain below, so that should be a non-issue.
RiderSyl wrote:I understand what you're mocking, NPU. I respect that you're mocking it. I just wish the way you were doing it was funnier than this.

I wasn't really going for mocking when I wrote this. Its more written because of a concern over what 425 says.

When the legality of what would become 425 was challenged at-vote Sedge ruled it legal because in spite of the presence of the clause about "Commend Ransium" the rest of the resolution met the standard of legality. I had (and have) no desire to challenge that ruling itself, but the practical effect of it is that the SC has now authoritatively determined in an un-amendable and un-repealable resolution, that "Commend Ransium" makes certain claims about the nature of Souls' participation in raiding. This clear statement is confusing when one reads 236's text, which seems to make no claims at all about Souls' raiding; unfortunately, since 425 can't be repealed the only recourse is to repeal 236 and correct this confusion. It is unfortunate that Ransium's commendation is the one caught up in this, but that is what happened.

Since "Proposals must be written from the perspective of the World Assembly or Security Council, not that of your nation, region or another organisation" (Rule 1a), this draft more than adequately "address[es] the contents of the resolution it is repealing" (Rule 1b). Although from the perspective of the average nation, region or another organisation the draft has almost nothing to do with the target, the SC's perspective is now different and so those other perspectives are irrelevant. Since voting ended for 425, the SC's perspective has officially been that "SC#236 mentions Souls’ involvement and leadership in numerous raiding organizations," etc. My draft seeks to bring the SC's perspective back into line with that of the ordinary reader.

But yes I agree I could be funnier :(

Wrapper wrote:Add a mention of how terrible Ransium is for writing my condemnation and I just might consider supporting this. :p

I'll see what I can do :P
Last edited by The North Polish Union on Mon Dec 05, 2022 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Minskiev wrote:You are GP's dross.
Petrovsegratsk wrote:NPU, I know your clearly a Polish nationalist, but wtf is up with your obssession with resurrecting the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?
The yoshin empire wrote:Grouping russians with slavs is like grouping germans with french , the two are so culturally different.

.
Balansujcie dopóki się da, a gdy się już nie da, podpalcie świat!
Author of S.C. Res. № 137
POLAND
STRONG!

User avatar
Tim-Opolis
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6166
Founded: Feb 17, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Tim-Opolis » Mon Dec 05, 2022 11:36 pm

Even for your level of branding, NPU, this is so unspeakably mid.
Want to be a hero? Join The Grey Wardens - Help Us Save Nationstates
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Commended by Security Council Resolution #420 ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Author of SC#74, SC #203, SC #222, and SC #238 | Co-Author of SC#191
Founder of Spiritus | Three-Time Delegate of Osiris | Pharaoh of the Islamic Republics of Iran | Hero of Greece
<Koth - 06/30/2020> I mean as far as GPers go, Tim is one of the most iconic

User avatar
Bhang Bhang Duc
Senator
 
Posts: 4018
Founded: Dec 17, 2003
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Bhang Bhang Duc » Tue Dec 06, 2022 12:07 am

You’re obviously convinced that you have done enough to make this draft legal, despite a number of disagreements with that position. I suggest you ask for a legality check from Moderation before submitting, just to settle the argument.
Former Delegate of The West Pacific. Guardian (under many Delegates) of The West Pacific. TWP's Former Minister for World Assembly Affairs and former Security Council Advisor.

The West Pacific's Official Welshman, Astronomer and Old Fart
Pierconium wrote:I see Funk as an opportunistic manipulator that utilises the means available to him to reach his goals. In other words, a nation after my own heart.

RiderSyl wrote:If an enchantress made it so one raid could bring about world peace, Unibot would ask raiders to just sign a petition instead.

Sedgistan wrote:The SC has just has a spate of really shitty ones recently from Northumbria, his Watermelon fanboy…..

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 33015
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Tue Dec 06, 2022 6:56 am

To the surprise of absolutely no-one, I can confirm the draft violates Rule 1b.

User avatar
The North Polish Union
Senator
 
Posts: 4513
Founded: Nov 13, 2012
Moralistic Democracy

Postby The North Polish Union » Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:19 am

Although I can't say I'm surprised by the legality ruling, I am a more than a little concerned by it.

If there was no Rule 1a, I agree that this draft would be unambiguously illegal. However, since 1a exists and resolutions must be written from the WA's/SC's perspective, I continue to sincerely believe that this draft does meet the requirements of Rule 1b. That is, it addresses the contents of 236 from the WA's perspective; a perspective which is in this case decidedly not the perspective any other nation, region, or organization would have.

To rule this draft illegal under 1b means that the WA does not view its pronouncements in passed resolutions as authoritative for the duration of those resolutions' presence in the WA's corpus. So in this case, when the WA makes pronouncements about 236 in 425 that doesn't mean anything because the WA apparently doesn't believe its resolutions have any sort of importance to them.

The WA can't have it both ways; demanding that authors draft their resolutions from the WA's perspective and then declining to view their own resolutions from that perspective. I don't believe the truly disastrous consequences of such an attitude on the WA's part need any further fleshing out.
Last edited by The North Polish Union on Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Minskiev wrote:You are GP's dross.
Petrovsegratsk wrote:NPU, I know your clearly a Polish nationalist, but wtf is up with your obssession with resurrecting the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?
The yoshin empire wrote:Grouping russians with slavs is like grouping germans with french , the two are so culturally different.

.
Balansujcie dopóki się da, a gdy się już nie da, podpalcie świat!
Author of S.C. Res. № 137
POLAND
STRONG!

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 33015
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:15 am

You're being ridiculous. The rule is very simple as it applies to repeals: "If your proposal is a Repeal it must address the contents of the resolution it is repealing." The contents of other resolutions are utterly irrelevant to complying with this rule.

User avatar
Quebecshire
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1332
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Quebecshire » Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:56 pm

There are two potential interpretations of the error found in SC425.

Interpretation 1: The error is clearly a typo, and it does not meaningfully impact the proposal. The proposal at-large is understood all the same, as a proposal's clauses are read as a group, not as isolated statutes devoid of context. Given that SC326 is referenced three times (and the SC236 typo only exists once), it is clear which resolution is actually being referred to. Most importantly, the operative clause(s), both the one inserted mechanically at the beginning and the one a the end of the resolution, reference the correct resolution. In all mechanically senses, the SC is addressing SC326, and as human beings are typically capable of recognizing nuance, it is pretty clear what was being asserted throughout SC425.

Interpretation 2: Isolating the "Recognizing" clause from the rest of SC425 is reasonable, and it makes an assertion about SC236 despite no mechanical or operative indication of SC236's involvement in SC425. Therefore, the SC was making a claim about SC236 through the passage of SC425 (note that in this interpretation, making a claim about SC236 does not physically change SC236, or impact it in a mechanical or operative form).

I would contend that most reasonable people would align with interpretation 1. However, regardless of which interpretation you wish to adhere to, SC236 remains tangibly unimpacted. Under your (foolish, if not bad faith) interpretation, the SC may have made a claim about it, but that claim does not actually impose itself upon or alter SC236 beyond simply being stated. So, to repeal SC236, you'd actually have to address things actually in SC236, not merely things which you believe to reference it.

User avatar
The North Polish Union
Senator
 
Posts: 4513
Founded: Nov 13, 2012
Moralistic Democracy

Postby The North Polish Union » Thu Dec 08, 2022 8:56 am

Sedgistan wrote:You're being ridiculous. The rule is very simple as it applies to repeals: "If your proposal is a Repeal it must address the contents of the resolution it is repealing." The contents of other resolutions are utterly irrelevant to complying with this rule.

With all due respect, the only thing ridiculous here is the idea that the WA can legislate that a passed resolution makes certain claims and less than a month later declare illegal a proposal that objects to those same claims.

The draft does "address the contents of the resolution it is repealing" because the WA has authoritatively stated that the contents of 236 make certain claims about Souls and TBH. The fact that you and I are unable to reconcile that with what 236 appears to say makes no difference. The WA has spoken, and either it means what it says when it passes resolutions or it doesn't, which would essentially lead to each individual delegation interpreting any resolution in the way that makes them the happiest.

Quebecshire wrote:There are two potential interpretations of the error found in SC425.

Interpretation 1: The error is clearly a typo, and it does not meaningfully impact the proposal. The proposal at-large is understood all the same, as a proposal's clauses are read as a group, not as isolated statutes devoid of context. Given that SC326 is referenced three times (and the SC236 typo only exists once), it is clear which resolution is actually being referred to. Most importantly, the operative clause(s), both the one inserted mechanically at the beginning and the one a the end of the resolution, reference the correct resolution. In all mechanically senses, the SC is addressing SC326, and as human beings are typically capable of recognizing nuance, it is pretty clear what was being asserted throughout SC425.

Interpretation 2: Isolating the "Recognizing" clause from the rest of SC425 is reasonable, and it makes an assertion about SC236 despite no mechanical or operative indication of SC236's involvement in SC425. Therefore, the SC was making a claim about SC236 through the passage of SC425 (note that in this interpretation, making a claim about SC236 does not physically change SC236, or impact it in a mechanical or operative form).

I agree with Interpretation 1 as far as relates to the legality of 425. Sedge ruled that legal on the grounds that even if the clause referencing 236 was discarded the resolution still met the requirements of rule 1b. I have no issue with this: others debating the legality of 425 correctly pointed out that past repeals have at times had clauses that don't address the target alongside clauses that do.

But, when it comes to 425's impact on 236, I agree more closely with Interpretation 2. The resolution says what it says, intentionally or not. If a hypothetical proposal to allow nuclear weapons accidentally omitted the word 'not' in a clause intended to be something like "possession of nuclear weapons shall not be illegal", making it read instead "possession of nuclear weapons shall be illegal", the effect would be to prohibit the possession of nuclear weapons; this would still be the case even if the intent of the resolution was not to prohibit nuclear weapons and the omission was unintentional.

When the SC passed 425, it did change something about 236 as I have already stated. Namely, it changed the WA's perspective on 236 from a resolution that had nothing to do with Souls or TBH to a resolution that did. So when attempting to repeal 236 this claim is fair game: either the WA must accept that the repeal addresses the target because it does so from an interpretation that WA has already accepted, even if that interpretation is not the most natural reading of the target; or it must accept that when it passes resolutions it is just throwing words into the void and the actual verbiage used in its resolutions has no actual consequences, if it takes this position this draft probably ought to be legal anyways since such an attitude would appear to negate any philosophical basis for any rules regulating resolutions to exist at all.

Quebecshire wrote:I would contend that most reasonable people would align with interpretation 1. However, regardless of which interpretation you wish to adhere to, SC236 remains tangibly unimpacted. Under your (foolish, if not bad faith) interpretation, the SC may have made a claim about it, but that claim does not actually impose itself upon or alter SC236 beyond simply being stated. So, to repeal SC236, you'd actually have to address things actually in SC236, not merely things which you believe to reference it.

Reasonable people ought to align with Interpretation 2 as relates to this draft for the reasons I explained above. When the WA passes legislation, particularly legislation that makes claims about other legislation, it does have a tangible impact. So when 425 makes claims about 236 the truth of those claims is meaningful, as is their effect on 236.
Minskiev wrote:You are GP's dross.
Petrovsegratsk wrote:NPU, I know your clearly a Polish nationalist, but wtf is up with your obssession with resurrecting the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?
The yoshin empire wrote:Grouping russians with slavs is like grouping germans with french , the two are so culturally different.

.
Balansujcie dopóki się da, a gdy się już nie da, podpalcie świat!
Author of S.C. Res. № 137
POLAND
STRONG!

User avatar
Wrapper
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 5993
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wrapper » Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:40 am

The North Polish Union wrote:Reasonable people ought to align with Interpretation 2 as relates to this draft for the reasons I explained above.

No, reasonable people will understand that it's just a typo and not overreact like some fifth-grade Grammar Nazi.

Signed,

A former fifth- (and sixth-, and seventh-, and eighth-) grade Grammar Nazi who'd irritated more than a couple English teachers in the 1970s.

User avatar
Ransium
Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 6790
Founded: Oct 17, 2006
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Ransium » Fri Dec 09, 2022 10:06 pm

Come on there are better reasons! I commended Drasnia and Drasnia then commended me it was clear quid pro quo! I condemned wrapper and Chan island and both nations actually contributed a lot, what up with that? I haven’t been active lately, do I still deserve it? I’m a mod and everyone hates the mods (surely this argument could be made obliquely enough to be legal, call my nation a bully who bosses around others or something). You can have your mockery and make this a half way decent repeal, don’t I at least deserve that?
Last edited by Ransium on Fri Dec 09, 2022 10:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Commended by SC 236,
WA Delegate of Forest from March 20th, 2007 to August 19, 2020.
Author of WA Resolutions: SC 221, SC 224, SC 233, SC 243, SC 265, GA 403, GA 439, GA 445,GA 463,GA 465,
Issues Editor since January 20th, 2017 with some down time.
Author of 27 issues. First editor of 44.
Moderator since November 10th 2017 with some down time.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Security Council

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads