[Complete][SC] Commend Separatist Peoples

Mousebumples

Mousebumples

TNPer
Commend Separatist Peoples
A resolution to recognize outstanding contribution by a nation or region.
Category: Commendation
Nominee: Separatist Peoples
Proposed by: John Turner

Description: The Security Council,

Recognizing the General Assembly's often self-deluded agenda of furthering international peace and prosperity, and failing goal of furthering international diplomacy;

Dedicated in its Violet-given right to see the worthiest of nations that have dedicated so much, yet asked for so little in return, forever enshrined in the permanent records of this esteemed council;

Convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that The Confederate Dominion of Separatist Peoples has made an explosive impact on the international community, via groundbreaking legislative efforts that not only have saved more lives than could possibly be calculated, but also have quite effectively legislated on the subject of international armed conflict to the point where any sane, reasonable nation can now wage all wars, from full scale conflagrations to teensy brushfire counterinsurgencies, and be sure that not one innocent life will be harmed;

Thus disclosing a small sample of the Separatists’ numerous legislative efforts, which have been deeply buried under the quagmire of unimaginable corruption and deceit known to many delegations as "the Festering Snakepit":

Rules of Surrender, which guarantees belligerents who have been defeated in armed conflict the right to surrender and not have their people shot on the spot by the victorious nation as a show of ultimate superiority;

Protected Status in Wartime, which not only enshrines that nations cannot dress up soldiers as medical personnel whilst subtly giving them weapons to rain mayhem on unsuspecting enemies gawking at wounded soldiers they just turned into Swiss cheese, but forever guarantees that soldiers whilst engaging in armed conflict shall be forced to wear the actual uniform of their armed forces, no matter how tacky or uncomfortable it may be;

Explosive Remnants of War, which codifies the ceaseless swarms of gnomes springing forth from the ever-expanding labyrinth of WA bureaucracies and sacrificing themselves by traversing minefields left by warring parties to ensure that nations are doing all they can to clean up the landmines they dropped all over the place, thus ensuring nations of the World Assembly they themselves will never be overrun with an overabundance of gnomes, as the Secretariat has yet to figure out how to plug up the spawning pool which keeps pumping them out.

Praising the antics of the one and only Ambassador Benjamin Bell, a wise man who can hear profit in the wind, a man consecrated as the Patron Saint of Bad Decisions by the clientele at the World Assembly Strangers’ Bar, earning the affection and respect of stripper commandos, sword-wielding maniacs, and lunatics that frequent the joint with bombs strapped to their chests and threaten to blow up the Security Council;

Further entertained by the efforts of Ambassador Bell, with the assistance of talking cars, milquetoast ferrets, violent pacifists, ogre bounty hunters, potted plants, and a very peculiar trash-eating, underwear-sniffing goat, in uncovering and neutralizing an international weapons smuggling operation, culminating in the capture of the perpetrators at the World Assembly Headquarters;

Thus believing without Ambassador Bell, forever immortalized by a stained glass window added during renovations after the infamous methanol incident, many lives would be lost and many drinks in the Strangers’ Bar would be left undrunk;

Hereby commends the great nation of The Confederate Dominion of Separatist Peoples.
Click to expand...

Please vote For, Against, Abstain, or Present.

As a reminder, an Abstain vote is a vote to have the Delegate abstain from voting. A Present vote indicates that you are personally abstaining on this vote.
 
I voted Nay.

Sorry. But I don't have a high opinion of him from his time as MoWA here - he done literally nothing, and lost citizenship fairly quickly, which I suspect he didn't even notice.

And yes, I do see him reading this thread.

[me] waves
 
Terribly sorry about that. I was laid of from work an had to relocate. During the financial and logistical difficulties, I lost track of several things, my position as MoWA included. I should have said something, and I really didn't mean to screw anything up.
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
I voted Nay.

Sorry. But I don't have a high opinion of him from his time as MoWA here - he done literally nothing, and lost citizenship fairly quickly, which I suspect he didn't even notice.

And yes, I do see him reading this thread.

Lord Ravenclaw waves
Click to expand...
So what's your WA voting policy, Mr. Delegate? Surely not vote with forum on issues you personally agree with and vote against when you don't agree with them.
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
I'm sorry Tomb, is there a problem? As Delegate I am freely allowed to determine how I vote.

I even stated how my decision is made.
Click to expand...
Your policy, then, specifically states:

"I do not plan on changing how the vote is generally decided - a thread in the WA Affairs Ministry where WA Members in TNP can decide how I vote.

In the event I need to vote another way to the consensus on this board, it would most likely be Security Council related given that body does handle proposals which tend to be foreign policy..."

As a Delegate, you are technically and legally free to vote however you want, of course. But you've gone ahead and disregarded the very standards that you've set for yourself. In the end, this is one vote, and it's not going to matter seeing how the whole NS tally currently stands. I just hope this doesn't become a habit. WA Citizens vote on these threads for a reason, and you're quite aware of it by your own words that you linked me to.
 
Nay.

It was our nation's understanding that the delegate would be voting based upon the input in this forum; indeed, it was that understanding that has led us to participate in this forum and attempt to use our opinions to sway the votes of other member nations. If that is not how this forum is meant to operate, and if that is not the way our delegate will determine our vote, we would appreciate if that would be made clear. While there is some merit to an advisory, non-binding forum thread, we suspect fewer nations would be inclined to participate were that the case.

However, in deference to our delegate's strong views on the topic (we have no strong views of our own), our nation votes NAY on the resolution.
 
You are taking this oddly seriously, and seem personally offended that I have voted using my free will.

There's no technicality about it, Tomb. I'm allowed to base my vote as Delegate off of whatever criteria I wish.

Legal Code: Section 7.5: World Assembly Voting
28. The Delegate may vote on all World Assembly (WA) resolutions as they see fit, using any method to determine their vote as they decide

I also said as you quote, "most likely". That does not rule out me deciding to follow another method. There is absolutely no reason for The North Pacific to vote in favour of this proposal.

Can you tell me some perhaps?
 
The Delegate has reserved their power to vote regardless of the forum discussion in the Security Council, in cases where they find regional policy reasons for this.

I am withholding my own opinion as I have failed to find certain evidence I seem to remember seeing, which changed my opinion of Separatist Peoples for the worse.
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
There is absolutely no reason for The North Pacific to vote in favour of this proposal.

Can you tell me some perhaps?
Click to expand...
I'm neither for or against this proposal, but this intrigues me. Are you saying that because of how his stint as MoWA went, the arguments in the resolution are no longer valid?
 
No, there was something else that happened. We remember a discussion on it, but cannot find what it is that triggered the discussion only that it was both unpleasant and disappointing. <We are searching for it>

I was inclined to withdraw my vote, originally. However, to withdraw my vote now after I have had to defend it would set precedence for the future - and if nothing else, I am not signing away the Delegates' free will in WA voting.
 
Fellow TNP nations, we propose that we vote down the resolution at bar to avoid a conflict between the "thread vote" and our delegate's actual vote. We request that any nation voting in the affirmative revise their vote to help us avoid an unseemly internal tempest over what appears to be a teapot-sized resolution.

Delegate Lord Ravenclaw, we respectfully request a clarification by your delegation regarding the function of this forum, and whether future votes on pending WA matters shall be strictly advisory, binding, or binding absent unusual and special circumstances.
 
Aye.

I am confused, I was under the impression that these threads would state how the delegate votes. While no one explicitly told me this I got my information from the World Assembly Voting Policy on this forum. Section 5 on the post states that "The delegate’s vote on each resolution will be determined by the running tally of the corresponding forum thread, and will be updated as the tally changes and as frequently as practically possible while not diminishing the regional voting influence. The exception to this rule will be Security Council resolution votes which deal with issues that pertain to the regional security or reputation of TNP or her allies. In such cases the Delegate, in consultation with the Cabinet, will have the prerogative to vote as they determine best."
Whilst there is a clause that would permit Lord Ravenclaw his discretion at voting I do not currently believe it is applicable bar further information. That being said, the World Assembly Voting Policy was last updated in 2014 (although edited in 2016), if this information is outdated then it should be updated.

For the record, if my vote was not actually of any importance and could simply be disregarded then I would not participate in these threads.
 
Praetor:
I am confused, I was under the impression that these threads would state how the delegate votes. While no one explicitly told me this I got my information from the World Assembly Voting Policy on this forum. Section 5 on the post states that "The delegate’s vote on each resolution will be determined by the running tally of the corresponding forum thread, and will be updated as the tally changes and as frequently as practically possible while not diminishing the regional voting influence. The exception to this rule will be Security Council resolution votes which deal with issues that pertain to the regional security or reputation of TNP or her allies. In such cases the Delegate, in consultation with the Cabinet, will have the prerogative to vote as they determine best."
Whilst there is a clause that would permit Lord Ravenclaw his discretion at voting I do not currently believe it is applicable bar further information. That being said, the World Assembly Voting Policy was last updated in 2014 (although edited in 2016), if this information is outdated then it should be updated.
Click to expand...
I believe you are referring to this thread (and likely this dispatch with identical content).

In the past, it was customary for delegates to post a thread clarifying the WA voting policy they intended to follow. The above thread was the voting policy that I followed during my two terms, between May 2014 - January 2015. Following the end of my second term, the voting policy ceased to have any effect.

Subsequent delegates did not continue the practice of posting a thread with their voting policy. As a result, the one from my term has remained pinned, and apparently has caused some confusion to members who assume it is still in effect. I think we had the same issue last term, when SillyString voted differently from the forum thread on some resolution.

I believe it would be best to unpin the old thread and, ideally, for Raven to make a new one detailing his own voting policy.


(although edited in 2016)
Click to expand...
The edit was merely to update the seal. I (as admin) somewhat mechanistically updated every pinned thread in all Ministries, without really checking whether the thread was still of use.
 
r3naissanc3r:
Praetor:
I am confused, I was under the impression that these threads would state how the delegate votes. While no one explicitly told me this I got my information from the World Assembly Voting Policy on this forum. Section 5 on the post states that "The delegate’s vote on each resolution will be determined by the running tally of the corresponding forum thread, and will be updated as the tally changes and as frequently as practically possible while not diminishing the regional voting influence. The exception to this rule will be Security Council resolution votes which deal with issues that pertain to the regional security or reputation of TNP or her allies. In such cases the Delegate, in consultation with the Cabinet, will have the prerogative to vote as they determine best."
Whilst there is a clause that would permit Lord Ravenclaw his discretion at voting I do not currently believe it is applicable bar further information. That being said, the World Assembly Voting Policy was last updated in 2014 (although edited in 2016), if this information is outdated then it should be updated.
Click to expand...
I believe you are referring to this thread (and likely this dispatch with identical content).

In the past, it was customary for delegates to post a thread clarifying the WA voting policy they intended to follow. The above thread was the voting policy that I followed during my two terms, between May 2014 - January 2015. Following the end of my second term, the voting policy ceased to have any effect.

Subsequent delegates did not continue the practice of posting a thread with their voting policy. As a result, the one from my term has remained pinned, and apparently has caused some confusion to members who assume it is still in effect. I think we had the same issue last term, when SillyString voted differently from the forum thread on some resolution.

I believe it would be best to unpin the old thread and, ideally, for Raven to make a new one detailing his own voting policy.


(although edited in 2016)
Click to expand...
The edit was merely to update the seal. I (as admin) somewhat mechanistically updated every pinned thread in all Ministries, without really checking whether the thread was still of use.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is where I found the policy. :yes:

Would it be possible to clarify that voting policy as well as any future policies to indicate the duration that they would remain applicable? Currently, it seems to me to be official policy. That does make sense however as it does conflict with 7.5.28 of the Legal Code.
 
Praetor:
Would it be possible to clarify that voting policy as well as any future policies to indicate the duration that they would remain applicable? Currently, it seems to me to be official policy. That does make sense however as it does conflict with 7.5.28 of the Legal Code.
Click to expand...
Aye, as I said above, I think it would be good if delegates returned to the practice of starting and maintaining, for the duration of their term, a thread explaining their voting policy.

I just want to clarify that, for the period when it was in effect, the old policy did not contradict 7.5.28. The policy was only "official" and binding to the extent that I, as delegate at the time, agreed to enforce it. At any time during my term, I maintained the legal right to contravene the policy, or even abolish it altogether. The policy was more of a voluntarily concession on my end, rather than an legally binding document. The same applies to all WA policies published by other delegates.
 
I do agree that while the Delegate's right to vote whatever they desire is significant, I opine that it is outweighed by the need to follow the majority of the public's opinion. As we are a democracy, albeit with oligarchic elements as discussed before, (which since this is NS is OK) I believe the Delegate, as an elected official, should represent the people, who through the election made him their representative to the world.

TL;DR- I think the Delegate should always vote with the majority's consensus, no matter their personal opinion. By all means they can voice their opinion and contribute a Nay vote to the tally, but when casting the regional vote on nationstates.net, the majority consensus should be followed.
 
While you are entitled to your opinion, Syrixia, no law mandates that the delegate must vote as the people want him to. Personally, I believe that if the delegate strongly feels a certain way about a proposal, he should vote as he feels necessary based on his own experiences and knowledge. It's like demanding the president of the United States veto or sign a specific bill: you may express your opinion, but he must and will vote the way he feels is right.
 
Syrixia:
I do agree that while the Delegate's right to vote whatever they desire is significant, I opine that it is outweighed by the need to follow the majority of the public's opinion. As we are a democracy, albeit with oligarchic elements as discussed before, (which since this is NS is OK) I believe the Delegate, as an elected official, should represent the people, who through the election made him their representative to the world.

TL;DR- I think the Delegate should always vote with the majority's consensus, no matter their personal opinion. By all means they can voice their opinion and contribute a Nay vote to the tally, but when casting the regional vote on nationstates.net, the majority consensus should be followed.
Click to expand...
Adding on to RPI's comments, iirc the vote of the regional delegate is tied to the personal vote of the delegate, and vice versa. It's not like in some lower houses of legislature wherein the Speaker can vote differently from the majority of the rest of the members of that house. (Simply put, a delegate cannot cast a vote for his nation, and then cast a different vote for the region.)

I do think, though, the holding forum votes and stuff to influence the regional vote can be useful in increasing participation and discussion in the forum. (Indeed, my old region lured me in to their forum and made me stay for years because of that - I started off as an NSUN regular. ;) )

That was back then. Now NS displays the in-game vote of all the WA members of the region. So there can be instances wherein the in-game vote and the forum vote contradict each other. What now then? Which majority will you now consider?

(Parenthetically, as experienced NSWA regulars know all too well, in-game votes are vulnerable to the lemming effect - so if we follow that vote, we might as well be contributing and exacerbating that, given the large voting power of the TNP delegate.)
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top