[Complete]At Vote:[SC] Repeal "Condemn the Pacific"

Mousebumples

Mousebumples

TNPer
Repeal "Condemn the Pacific"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
Category: Repeal
Resolution: SC#177
Proposed by: DrWinner

Description: WA Security Council Resolution #177: Condemn the Pacific shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The Security Council:
Acknowledging that the Pacific Order, formerly known as the New Pacific Order (NPO), the regional government against which the charges of SC#177 were made, continues to govern The Pacific;

Recognizing, however, that under the leadership of Pierconium, the Pacific Order has issued a public apology for past wrongdoing against other regions, most recently including its involvement in the 2015 conflict in Lazarus;

Recalling that senior nations involved in the Lazarus conflict have been expelled from leadership positions in the Pacific Order, and in several cases expelled from the Pacific Order altogether, by Pierconium;

Noting that the Pacific Order has conducted its affairs with other regions in a responsible and respectful manner in the year since condemnation of The Pacific;

Citing the precedent set by SC#71: Repeal "Condemn Unknown," in which the resolution of condemnation against Unknown for much greater offenses than those committed by The Pacific was repealed, following a change in both leadership and behavior in Unknown similar to that which has occurred in The Pacific;

Respecting the ideological and political diversity that characterizes regional governments chosen by their regional populations throughout the world, and recognizing the sovereign right of these regional populations to self-determination in selecting their forms of government;

Observing that, contrary to the claims made by SC#177, the regional government of The Pacific has enjoyed the support of its regional population for more than a decade, and that many nations actively involved in The Pacific's regional affairs find the long-term stability provided by the Pacific Order conducive to national, international, and regional development, rather than finding it oppressive;

Asserting that the attempt made by SC#177 to impose foreign ideological and political proclivities on the regional population of The Pacific is imperialistic in nature, disrespecting the sovereign right of the nations of The Pacific to choose their regional form of government; and

Repudiating the imperialistic approach undertaken by SC#177, to spread interregional peace and goodwill through rigid conformity and uniformity rather than through mutual respect and tolerance, as inconsistent with the values and aims of this Security Council:

Hereby Repeals SC#177: Condemn The Pacific.
Click to expand...

Please vote: For, Against, Abstain, or Present.

As a reminder, a vote For the repeal means that you want this condemnation removed from the books.
 
If I were in the WA I would vote for. The stated reasons given by the Delegate of TNP during the last vote were specifically that he could not support the author earning a badge. The author has changed.

The original submitter is now DOS and most of the grievances within the initial condemnation have been addressed. It has been a full year and outside of some petty complaint about activities from over a decade ago, I can not see how TNP could justify voting against this once again.

Of course, the Delegate voted within minutes of the last resolution but has been conspicuously absent today.
 
So Cormac found an arse-licker or a patsy?

A Cormac by any other name will still smell as .... sweet.


PS. Against.
 
flemingovia:
So Cormac found an arse-licker or a patsy?

A Cormac by any other name will still smell as .... sweet.
Click to expand...
That is besides the point. The nation in question did so of his own free will without consultation with anyone in TP's government from what I can gather on the forums. Cormac is no longer the author of record. Not that the author should actually matter in regards to the merits of a resolution anyway, in my opinion.

And yes, Flemingovia, I am well aware that you would vote against. I did mention petty vindictiveness above. That is not unexpected.

A vote against from Raven is not unexpected either. I'm just surprised that he hasn't come here and done so with some other bullshit excuse. Or, he may be waiting until the against side has stacked high enough so that his vote will not be a factor. Either way, considering his swift action the last time around, the delay is suspicious to me.
 
Gracius Maximus:
The original submitter is now DOS
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, GM is referring to the original submitter of the condemnation, not the original submitter of the repeal (yours truly). I'm sorry to disappoint some of you. :P
 
Gracius Maximus:
A vote against from Raven is not unexpected either. I'm just surprised that he hasn't come here and done so with some other bullshit excuse. Or, he may be waiting until the against side has stacked high enough so that his vote will not be a factor. Either way, considering his swift action the last time around, the delay is suspicious to me.
Click to expand...
I think Raven is offline. He has a real life, apparently.
 
Gracius Maximus:
flemingovia:
So Cormac found an arse-licker or a patsy?

A Cormac by any other name will still smell as .... sweet.
Click to expand...
That is besides the point. The nation in question did so of his own free will without consultation with anyone in TP's government from what I can gather on the forums. Cormac is no longer the author of record. Not that the author should actually matter in regards to the merits of a resolution anyway, in my opinion.

And yes, Flemingovia, I am well aware that you would vote against. I did mention petty vindictiveness above. That is not unexpected.

A vote against from Raven is not unexpected either. I'm just surprised that he hasn't come here and done so with some other bullshit excuse. Or, he may be waiting until the against side has stacked high enough so that his vote will not be a factor. Either way, considering his swift action the last time around, the delay is suspicious to me.
Click to expand...
To clarify on the "delay" (note: less than 12 hours have passed since the voting has opened gameside) -

Last time, Raven and I were both online when the repeal came to a vote. I was planning to vote early on behalf of my region (where I'm WA Delegate - Europeia), and I linked him to the TNP thread. Due to a variety of reasons that I think he explained in the previous thread on the subject, he voted against on behalf of TNP early.

I was not online last night, and I didn't even notice this was at vote until I woke up this morning - which is when I made this thread. While the Condemnation of The Pacific may be the item first and foremost in some people's minds whenever they do NS things, it's waaaaay down my list of priorities. I can't speak for Raven, but I doubt that he thinks it's important enough to "act in a suspicious manner."

But continue offering all the conspiracy theories you want. *offers more foil for your tinfoil hat*
 
If you say so.

I'm fairly certain I didn't make up the reasoning behind the last vote or the rumor I see posted on the forum that some of the current negative voters are still clinging to the 'bad blood' issue with Cormac. But yeah, sure.
 
I do wonder if the delegate of The Pacific believes that the voters in The North Pacific are complete dumbasses? Whilst I can understand that the player behind Gracius Maximus is free to play the game however he likes, does he really think that people don't know that Gracius Maximus is Pierconium, delegate and Emperor of The Pacific?

So if the delegate of The Pacific could drop the "if I were in the WA" act I'm sure he might get a more amenable response to the diplomatic pressure he is attempting to put on citizens of The North Pacific.

Although I am keen to see the delegate of The Pacific pursue repeals of other resolutions made by DOS players just as... zealously as he is pursuing this, since its suddenly become a reason to do it.
 
GM - Ivan - Pierconium: You were surprised that I wasn't online at 8am? I am a full time carer to a disabled relative who requires full night-time supervision with oxygen and a concentrator (Something that I have been very clear and open about over the years!). NationStates does not rank above that responsibility and last time me being online at that time was a fluke - it meant that I hadn't been to bed.

I'll start respecting your duality again once you stop making snide comments about me.

From #gameplay:
[07:51] <Moldavi> Just logged in to see if Raven was around to stand by his word - looks like he is conveniently offline this morning - not too surprised
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
GM - Ivan - Pierconium: You were surprised that I wasn't online at 8am? I am a full time carer to a disabled relative who requires full night-time supervision with oxygen and a concentrator (Something that I have been very clear and open about over the years!). NationStates does not rank above that responsibility and last time me being online at that time was a fluke - it meant that I hadn't been to bed.

I'll start respecting your duality again once you stop making snide comments about me.
Click to expand...
Oddly, you're around now and have apparently been around for at least two hours, and yet you have cast no vote.

Are you ready to admit you were lying when you said your previous vote against was about authorship, and acknowledge that you were just following through on plans concocted a year ago to impose a diplomatic "cordon sanitaire" around The Pacific?
 
Cormac:
Lord Ravenclaw:
GM - Ivan - Pierconium: You were surprised that I wasn't online at 8am? I am a full time carer to a disabled relative who requires full night-time supervision with oxygen and a concentrator (Something that I have been very clear and open about over the years!). NationStates does not rank above that responsibility and last time me being online at that time was a fluke - it meant that I hadn't been to bed.

I'll start respecting your duality again once you stop making snide comments about me.
Click to expand...
Oddly, you're around now and have apparently been around for at least two hours, and yet you have cast no vote.
Click to expand...
Is it really "odd" that he's around at 10:30 pm in his timezone? Really? I mean... seriously?
 
Contrary to how it usually happens, am I gonna be the one who calls the parties to chill down a bit?

I do think Raven made affirmations before that he may want to consider before casting his vote, and that the whole region credibility may be impacted according to how the vote is cast, however, he is still a delegate with the power to decide his vote whatever way he wishes to...
 
St George:
Cormac:
Lord Ravenclaw:
GM - Ivan - Pierconium: You were surprised that I wasn't online at 8am? I am a full time carer to a disabled relative who requires full night-time supervision with oxygen and a concentrator (Something that I have been very clear and open about over the years!). NationStates does not rank above that responsibility and last time me being online at that time was a fluke - it meant that I hadn't been to bed.

I'll start respecting your duality again once you stop making snide comments about me.
Click to expand...
Oddly, you're around now and have apparently been around for at least two hours, and yet you have cast no vote.
Click to expand...
Is it really "odd" that he's around at 10:30 pm in his timezone? Really? I mean... seriously?
Click to expand...
I meant it was odd that his excuse for not voting is that he wasn't around, and yet he is around now and has been around for hours... and is still not voting. It looks very much like GM's assessment that Raven is stalling until a vote for repeal would no longer be helpful is accurate.
 
Nothing that I have stated here is privileged information that could not be found by anyone doing a search on the NS forum so I fail to see why anyone would need to make OOC comments towards me.

That said, as a citizen of TNP, I have the right to question our Delegate if he makes grand proclamations about intent and then does not follow through. Just because I may be associated with another involved nation on an OOC level has no bearing on my desire to not see this region use the WA as a bully pulpit.

But, I wouldn't worry about it. It looks like the Pacific is preparing to close up shop soon anyway based on the poll in their region. We won't have to worry about them any longer.
 
Against.

PS. Still strongly against.

Also, worth noting, when I voted yesterday and now, the individual nation votes were both weighing against the repeal.
 
I've decided to follow the forum and in-game vote. :)

"Lord Ravenclaw's vote against "Repeal "Condemn the Pacific" has been noted."
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
I've decided to follow the forum and in-game vote. :)

"Lord Ravenclaw's vote against "Repeal "Condemn the Pacific" has been noted."
Click to expand...
Interesting how this didn't factor into your decision last time a tiny bit, when you said the only reason you were voting against was authorship. Authorship has changed so now your excuse is the in-game and forum vote.

I see the prior thread for the previously submitted repeal has now also been hidden from public view to prevent referencing it for others to see. So much for transparency -- which is one of the requirements of the Bill of Rights, isn't it?

RIP to The North Pacific's credibility and your own.
 
Cormac:
I see the prior thread for the previously submitted repeal has now also been hidden from public view to prevent referencing it for others to see. So much for transparency -- which is one of the requirements of the Bill of Rights, isn't it?
Click to expand...
What actually happened was that I ran an archiving autotool on the previous thread, to make sure people do not get confused and vote in the wrong thread. However, due to a well-known bug with autotools that move topics, the thread was put in the moderation queue, instead of just being moved to the archive forum.

I noticed the issue when I saw Cormac's FOIA request, and I have now fixed it. The old thread is once again available here.
 
Still against. Doesn't matter to me who authored it. Actions have consequences. We're not dealing with five year olds here. Saying you're sorry and shaking hands doesn't undo the damage that was done.

Gracius Maximus:
I have the right to question our Delegate if he makes grand proclamations about intent and then does not follow through. Just because I may be associated with another involved nation on an OOC level has no bearing on my desire to not see this region use the WA as a bully pulpit.
Click to expand...
Yes you do, just as the Delegate has the freedom to vote on WA proposals in whatever way they see fit (and whenever as well). You've suggested others who have posted are being petty, but the 'bully pulpit' remark isn't above that.
 
falapatorius:
Still against. Doesn't matter to me who authored it. Actions have consequences. We're not dealing with five year olds here. Saying you're sorry and shaking hands doesn't undo the damage that was done.

Gracius Maximus:
I have the right to question our Delegate if he makes grand proclamations about intent and then does not follow through. Just because I may be associated with another involved nation on an OOC level has no bearing on my desire to not see this region use the WA as a bully pulpit.
Click to expand...
Yes you do, just as the Delegate has the freedom to vote on WA proposals in whatever way they see fit (and whenever as well). You've suggested others who have posted are being petty, but the 'bully pulpit' remark isn't above that.
Click to expand...
How is that petty? Do you know what 'bully pulpit' means?
 
Cormac:
Lord Ravenclaw:
I've decided to follow the forum and in-game vote. :)

"Lord Ravenclaw's vote against "Repeal "Condemn the Pacific" has been noted."
Click to expand...
Interesting how this didn't factor into your decision last time a tiny bit, when you said the only reason you were voting against was authorship. Authorship has changed so now your excuse is the in-game and forum vote.

I see the prior thread for the previously submitted repeal has now also been hidden from public view to prevent referencing it for others to see. So much for transparency -- which is one of the requirements of the Bill of Rights, isn't it?

RIP to The North Pacific's credibility and your own.
Click to expand...
People can have more than one reason for doing something.

I am personally glad that the delegate is following the expressed will of tnp, both on forum and off. That has pretty consistently been my position.
 
flemingovia:
Cormac:
Lord Ravenclaw:
I've decided to follow the forum and in-game vote. :)

"Lord Ravenclaw's vote against "Repeal "Condemn the Pacific" has been noted."
Click to expand...
Interesting how this didn't factor into your decision last time a tiny bit, when you said the only reason you were voting against was authorship. Authorship has changed so now your excuse is the in-game and forum vote.

I see the prior thread for the previously submitted repeal has now also been hidden from public view to prevent referencing it for others to see. So much for transparency -- which is one of the requirements of the Bill of Rights, isn't it?

RIP to The North Pacific's credibility and your own.
Click to expand...
People can have more than one reason for doing something.

I am personally glad that the delegate is following the expressed will of tnp, both on forum and off. That has pretty consistently been my position.
Click to expand...
Yes, and if this were the standard I would not have any qualms with it. But, that is not what happened here is it? The Delegate used his position to push a personal vendetta against a specific nation to uphold a Condemnation in what had been a friendly region of nearly ten thousand nations.

Most of us have been doing this a very long time. I won't insult you by calling you naive if you don't insult me by thinking I am gullible.
 
I'm learning a great deal many things about how nefarious I am. Do continue, this is fascinating to read.
 
Does not The Pacific, much like The West Pacific, recognise the supremacy of the sitting delegate in all game-side affairs? If this is so true, then as Delegate I can do no wrong within those interpretations.

As Delegate I have voted in the World Assembly, using the criteria that I found most suitable. In doing so, I also represented and acted upon the will of the majority of The North Pacific.

Those who disagree with this approach, which is protected under LC-7.5 for the case of World Assembly Votes, should seek to clarify its legality and limitations with the Court of The North Pacific or petition the Regional Assembly to amend it.
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
Does not The Pacific, much like The West Pacific, recognise the supremacy of the sitting delegate in all game-side affairs? If this is so true, then as Delegate I can do no wrong within those interpretations.

As Delegate I have voted in the World Assembly, using the criteria that I found most suitable. In doing so, I also represented and acted upon the will of the majority of The North Pacific.

Those who disagree with this approach, which is protected under LC-7.5 for the case of World Assembly Votes, should seek to clarify its legality and limitations with the Court of The North Pacific or petition the Regional Assembly to amend it.
Click to expand...
So you admit that you lied to the Pacific and that you utilized your vote here to carry out a personal vendetta? Okay then, that is good to know, not that it wasn't already apparent.

Aside from that, it is my interpretation that the Pacific supports the rights of a sitting Delegate to support whatever form of government it sees fit, which is not equivalent to the Delegate being able to do anything that they wish.

In this region, you support this government, and as such have made yourself subservient to it. That gives me the right, as a citizen of this region, to voice my displeasure at you using your power within the WA that is granted to you by the nations of TNP to carry out your own personal political war over events that have taken place in a completely different region.

You are within your rights to vote as you see fit, of course. But don't pretend that it is something other than what it is. Don't give us a bag of shit and call it roses, own it.
 
Oh dear god man. I did not lie to The Pacific. I simply decided that I was not going to be passively aggressively harassed via IRC by anyone. You sunk your chances this time round by being arsey in Gameplay and over query.

Deal with it.

As for my being able to be here, do not speak about matters that you do not understand Ivan. It just so happens that yes, I was available this morning since there is a nurse attending to my disabled mother - something I would normally be doing today - courtesy of a blood oxygen level of 61.
 
Gracius Maximus:
How is that petty? Do you know what 'bully pulpit' means?
Click to expand...
Sure, it's using a position of influence to advocate an agenda. Happens in politics quite often. In the context of this debate though, I presumed you meant it negatively. You did:

Gracius Maximus:
The Delegate used his position to push a personal vendetta against a specific nation to uphold a Condemnation in what had been a friendly region of nearly ten thousand nations.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't really care what the Delegate or the Ministry of WA Affairs thinks of a proposal. I make up my own mind. Granted, TNP wields a lot of WA votes, but I don't think Raven is the Pied Piper of the WA (I could be wrong I guess). Anyway, I'll say your statement was provocative rather than petty.
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
Oh dear god man. I did not lie to The Pacific. I simply decided that I was not going to be passively aggressively harassed via IRC by anyone. You sunk your chances this time round by being arsey in Gameplay and over query.

Deal with it.

As for my being able to be here, do not speak about matters that you do not understand Ivan. It just so happens that yes, I was available this morning since there is a nurse attending to my disabled mother - something I would normally be doing today - courtesy of a blood oxygen level of 61.
Click to expand...
I have removed the comment regarding your activity.

Aside from that, nothing that was stated in Gameplay by any nation was untrue. Nothing that I have stated here has been untrue. You are a liar. Deal with that.

It does not matter if no one here agrees with me or my position, it does not change that fact. You lied to another GCR after utilizing your position in the first vote to carry out a petty grudge. All true.

You knew the proposal was going up for a vote and even when you were online you delayed. Also true.

But, you are right, you have the law to support you. You can vote as you see fit, and have. It is just a shame that you are a coward and can't own your own decisions without blaming someone else for them.

As for my part, if you are referencing comments made by another nation that I am closely associated with, your failure to see how your duplicitous actions here and elsewhere would upset a foreign leader is your problem.
 
falapatorius:
Gracius Maximus:
How is that petty? Do you know what 'bully pulpit' means?
Click to expand...
Sure, it's using a position of influence to advocate an agenda. Happens in politics quite often. In the context of this debate though, I presumed you meant it negatively. You did:

Gracius Maximus:
The Delegate used his position to push a personal vendetta against a specific nation to uphold a Condemnation in what had been a friendly region of nearly ten thousand nations.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't really care what the Delegate or the Ministry of WA Affairs thinks of a proposal. I make up my own mind. Granted, TNP wields a lot of WA votes, but I don't think Raven is the Pied Piper of the WA (I could be wrong I guess). Anyway, I'll say your statement was provocative rather than petty.
Click to expand...
Provocative is a definite possibility.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Lord Ravenclaw:
Oh dear god man. I did not lie to The Pacific. I simply decided that I was not going to be passively aggressively harassed via IRC by anyone. You sunk your chances this time round by being arsey in Gameplay and over query.

Deal with it.

As for my being able to be here, do not speak about matters that you do not understand Ivan. It just so happens that yes, I was available this morning since there is a nurse attending to my disabled mother - something I would normally be doing today - courtesy of a blood oxygen level of 61.
Click to expand...
As for my part, if you are referencing comments made by another nation that I am closely associated with, your failure to see how your duplicitous actions here and elsewhere would upset a foreign leader is your problem.
Click to expand...
I might have to wash my eyes after this one... what did I just read
 
Okay, that is enough. When a thread gets this personal, it is time to step back and take a deep breath.

Thread locked.

If the minister for World Affairs wishes to open another thread to discuss this repeal, where it can be discussed civilly and focussing on the issues, then that is their right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top