[PASSED] Commend Goobergunchia

[Todd McCloud]

*ahem*

I like how so many of these statements are being made after the fact, when the C&C was in the draftroom for 3.5 months. I am not perfect - no one is - hence the need for a draft period. If there are changes to be made, I would not mind hearing them prior to the fact instead of having threads like this turned into a Monday Quarterback session. That is, after all, why we have a draft period. If the resolution is poorly written, why didn't anyone else offer suggestions? Some did, and their critiques / corrections were noted and made (You can see it from the original draft vs. the final draft). It is frustrating to have little said about this resolution during the draft phase, then suddenly a bouquet of critiques presented after the fact. Furthermore, I've had four of these reach the floor, three pass. I do not think anyone can deny the nation or region in question who got the C&C - if people think the text is that bad, then obviously their achievements shine passed horrible writing, so to speak. This is not about them.

Finally, if people do find these resolutions to be horribly written, I challenge them to do their research, work it out, put it to draft, telegram delegates like mad to announce it's reached the floor, then defend the proposal for 3-4 days, fighting a handful of nations along the way. Do this four times. Perhaps you may understand why my patience has been tested, and how frustrating it is to have all gripes made *after the fact*. Truly, 3.5 months is ample time to have the proposal read over backwards and forwards, translated into a dozen languages and have every sentence diagrammed by a committee of PhDs in the English language. That's about all I have to say. Though, I will part with this: I do plan to submit more C&C's, and I do not expect the griping to stop. But for those who do, I ask them to please, next time, when it is in draft, to say everything that comes to mind. You will not hurt my feelings; you will make my job easier.

Thanks.

[Todd McCloud]

Almost nothing is illegal in a C&C as long as the C&C is well written.

...which annoys me to an extent. However, I voted for this resolution considering how useful and widely used the NSwiki is. Although, after looking at this resolution a bit afterwards, I question the relevance of this clause:

UNDERSTANDING the various positions the nation has held throughout its history, including Deputy Secretary of State in the Alliance Defense Network and Secretary of Red Liberty Alliance.

...because, frankly, I don't understand these positions, and I'm sure quite a few other WA Members don't either.

This clause was added because the interview I gave Goob at the time had this included. I felt it was something extra he did; one couldn't be commended for it alone, but it did add to his list of impressive achievements.

[A mean old man]

This clause was added because the interview I gave Goob at the time had this included. I felt it was something extra he did; one couldn't be commended for it alone, but it did add to his list of impressive achievements.

But what ARE these positions...?

[Gobbannium]

Just to be clear, I think Todd is near unique in the SC for producing well-researched, properly drafted, eminently readable proposals. It's just a shame that this couldn't be harnessed for the forces of Good the way he does it emphasizes the elements of the SC that I loathe.

Anyway, the damn thing's passed. Bye.

[Krioval]

OOC:

*ahem*

I like how so many of these statements are being made after the fact, when the C&C was in the draftroom for 3.5 months. I am not perfect - no one is - hence the need for a draft period. If there are changes to be made, I would not mind hearing them prior to the fact instead of having threads like this turned into a Monday Quarterback session. That is, after all, why we have a draft period. If the resolution is poorly written, why didn't anyone else offer suggestions? Some did, and their critiques / corrections were noted and made (You can see it from the original draft vs. the final draft). It is frustrating to have little said about this resolution during the draft phase, then suddenly a bouquet of critiques presented after the fact. Furthermore, I've had four of these reach the floor, three pass. I do not think anyone can deny the nation or region in question who got the C&C - if people think the text is that bad, then obviously their achievements shine passed horrible writing, so to speak. This is not about them.

Sometimes, a given draft issued late in the drafting session rankles people more than earlier ones, generating late-term opposition. Certainly, I don't think you should discount that as "a Monday Quarterback session". Also, there are people who don't like the subject, so no amount of tweaking is going to get you their support. That's part of proposal writing. And please keep in mind that there's nothing particularly special about resolution authorship. There are good resolutions that pass, good ones that fail, crap that passes, and crap that fails. The only thing that a resume of passed resolutions says is that one is good at TG campaigns and can write mostly coherent sentences.

Finally, if people do find these resolutions to be horribly written, I challenge them to do their research, work it out, put it to draft, telegram delegates like mad to announce it's reached the floor, then defend the proposal for 3-4 days, fighting a handful of nations along the way. Do this four times. Perhaps you may understand why my patience has been tested, and how frustrating it is to have all gripes made *after the fact*. Truly, 3.5 months is ample time to have the proposal read over backwards and forwards, translated into a dozen languages and have every sentence diagrammed by a committee of PhDs in the English language. That's about all I have to say. Though, I will part with this: I do plan to submit more C&C's, and I do not expect the griping to stop. But for those who do, I ask them to please, next time, when it is in draft, to say everything that comes to mind. You will not hurt my feelings; you will make my job easier.

Thanks.

Uh, yeah, the GA's (previously NSUN) been doing this for years now. If it's that frustrating to hear criticism after the fact, I strongly recommend not writing more proposals for the WA - you're going to catch hell from someone for even the best written resolution that passes by 80+% simply because you didn't get 100% in favor. It's really not about *you*. It's about the *process*. Some people, myself included, find certain proposals or classes of proposals distasteful for one reason or another; it has nothing to do with the quality of the language in some of these cases.