[SC - Passed] Condemn Durkadurkiranistan II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robespierre

Robespierre

The MacMilitant
Pronouns
He/him
TNP Nation
Francois Isidore
Discord
themacmilitant

sc.jpg

Condemn Durkadurkiranistan II
Category: Condemnation | Nominee: Durkadurkiranistan II
Proposed by: Marilyn Manson Freaks | Onsite Topic​
The Security Council,

Identifying the nation of Durkadurkiranistan II as a vile and ancient menace to the world, one that has upset the balance of power within many Feeder and Sinker regions.

Reminiscing about Durkadurkiranistan II's early days when they were known as John ashcroft land, a starchy but pleasant and skilled defender in the Alliance Defense Network (ADN) before they started down a dark and winding path of interregional infamy.

Lamenting the many evil influences that might have led Durkadurkiranistan II astray. For example, maybe it was simply their exposure to Pierconium's North Pacific Directorate (NPD) coup of The North Pacific as Pixiedance as a young nation, perhaps it was their involvement in the West Pacific Triumvirate (WPT) coup executed by Wickedly evil people and their inner-circle, or possibly even their participation as a Lord Governor (Minister) in The Crimson Order (TCO), the illegal government of The North Pacific, created by Westwind as Lewis and Clark.

Recalling Durkadurkiranistan II's first major step towards infamy when they illegally seized the delegacy of Lazarus in 2009 under the alias of Viceroy victorious, where they ousted the then inactive outgoing Delegate and Queen Harmoneia for their own personal gain. This illegal seizure of the delegacy lead to many days of regional strife as "High Tsar" Viceroy Victorious mocked the lawfully elected government and forced them to make concessions in order to regain the delegacy for their newly-elected King, Killer Kitty.

Dismayed that Durkadurkiranistan II's occupation of Lazarus wasn't enough for them, as they went on to invade The North Pacific twice, in 2009 and 2010. Once as Durkadurkiranistan, its legally elected Delegate and "Grand Ayatollah", and once during a transition for the position of Delegate as Durkadurkiranistan II.

Appalled that the lawful Delegate of Osiris, The Dourian Embassy, willfully and proudly assimilated itself into Nevadar and Durkadurkiranistan II's empire in 2013, allowing Durkadurkiranistan II to overthrow the legitimate government of Osiris, the Kemetic Republic (KRO), and claim Osiris for the notorious region of Gatesville while making a mockery of the KRO by styling themselves as the "Governor Imperator" of the Imperium of Osiris and by purging innocent nations. This invasion eventually led to the destruction of the KRO.

Also highlighting Milograd's 2013 coup of The South Pacific, in which the government of Milograd happily allowed Durkadurkiranistan II and a few other nations access to their national infrastructure. Durkadurkiranistan II metaphorically jumped at this opportunity and purged thousands of nations from The South Pacific and assisted Milograd and company in the foundation of the South Pacific Socialist Republic (SPSR), a destructive regime founded only to belittle and confuse The South Pacific's more established natives.

Recognizing that Durkadurkiranistan II is nothing but a monstrous tyrant and deserves nothing but the World Assembly's disapproval.

Hereby condemns Durkadurkiranistan II.

Co-authored with Kuriko.
Click to expand...
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
 
No strong feelings from me. Not sure why its duplicating a previously passed resolution. Its also a dry and somewhat boring read. I also dislike the bolding of the beginning of the lines.

Against
 
Last edited:
It's interesting to me that thus far no one has expressed any strong feelings either in favour of this condemnation or in opposition to its passage through the Security Council. I will be the one to break that trend and say that I absolutely support this resolution. In my mind, it would be devaluing to Durkadurkiranistan's actions in the past to suggest passively that we're in favour of this resolution. Let us not forget, this is a nation who has repeatedly expressed the utmost of dissent with regards to our democratic process - and they have done so in a manner that is unlawful both by our standards and by the standards of our fellow game-created regions.

Not only have they exhibited a tyrannical nature when it comes to our region's governance, but that have done so elsewhere as well. A strong stance in favour of this resolution solidifies the unfortunate circumstances that North Pacificans found themselves in before and actively communicates that we remember (for those of us who were around) and that we sympathize (for those of us who weren't around) with those that came before us in service to this region.
 
Pretty sure he was already condemned on another nation for TNP related issues.

In any event, this could have used some work before submitting. It’s a bit sloppy but passable.

Against
 
Last edited:
I would also urge residents of TNP to vote against.

That very same nation has a condemnation for acts against TNP specifically. The nation submitting this resolution intends for it to act a a replacement, yet, this condemnation has nowhere near the specificity and focus on acts harming our region.

I would as such urge nations to vote against to signal that the actions taken against The North Pacific should not be minimized as this resolution does.
 
Absolutely agreed. Knowing this is intended to replace a sufficient and worthy condemnation, especially one that properly addresses the target’s actions against us, I cannot support it.

Against
 
For.

It seems to me this is not meant to be a replacement, as others have suggested, but rather an update
 
Gorundu:
For.

It seems to me this is not meant to be a replacement, as others have suggested, but rather an update
Click to expand...
The author originally stated in the drafting thread it is intended as a replacement.

Subsequently after some concerns he said he will "probably not". However, I see no reason to pass this inadequate one and leave us vulnerable to the original being repealed.
 
Last edited:
After a lengthy discussion about the current proposal's adequacy, I will now we be switching my position from being in favour of (FOR) the resolution's passage to being opposed to (AGAINST) our Delegate supporting it. This is pending a project that will encourage domestic authorship of the subject material and properly address the relevant information as it regards to the North Pacific that was left out of the resolution as it stands on the table.
 
I'm going to start going through your comments and responding.

TlomzKrano:
No strong feelings from me. Not sure why its duplicating a previously passed resolution. Its also a dry and somewhat boring read. I also dislike the bolding of the beginning of the lines.

I don't see how it's duplicating the first resolution. My resolution mentions more than his 2010 coup of TNP, and is entirely different. Also, sorry that you find it boring, perhaps you could've brought your thoughts up during drafting.

Against
Click to expand...

Pallaith:
Absolutely agreed. Knowing this is intended to replace a sufficient and worthy condemnation, especially one that properly addresses the target’s actions against us, I cannot support it.

Against
Click to expand...

After speaking to the first resolution's author, my NS Dad, I've realized that the resolution is too historically significant to repeal. I also believe Durk deserves both condemnations for all that he's done.

Praetor:
The author originally stated in the drafting thread it is intended as a replacement.

Subsequently after some concerns he said he will "probably not". However, I see no reason to pass this inadequate one and leave us vulnerable to the original being repealed.
Click to expand...

I have no intentions of repealing the other one.

Lord Lore:
against

Why can't the SC ever let something die. The horse be dead, the bones have long since powdered, you've kicked the ground so much you are 20 feet underground.
Click to expand...

I'd rather someone or something that did a ton of a things a long time ago get recognition than some newbie that has done less recently.

Also, overall, I only touched on TNP's part in my resolution because I already had doubts about repealing the original condemnation. I decided to leave it that way after I decided to not attempt a repeal of his first condemnation because of how historically significant it is.
 
Marilyn Manson:
I'd rather someone or something that did a ton of a things a long time ago get recognition than some newbie that has done less recently.
Click to expand...

You are talking about someone who is ALREADY condemned, your double dipping the chip in the recognition dip not bringing attention to someone who has been entirely ignored. I have seen no good reason to condemn the condemned. When was the last time DurkaDurka was actually relevant? When was the last time they did a god damned thing?

And the fact that its not needed is only the icing on the cake of sillyness. The thing is sooo problematically written. Paragraph 3 is pretentious as all hell and balances on almost being apologetic for their actions. I also find 6 to be problematically. It basically condemns them for the actions of other people. Dourian did a bad thing so DurkaDurka bad. And 7 is so vaguely worded that for all I know DurkaDurka set up an sandwich shop in TSP (and for the love of god adding "Durkadurkastan II metaphorically jumped at the chance" is just bad writing, its just flat out childish and reads like a joke where a joke should not be. Instead of telling me about his game of hop scotch actually give me details of what he SPECIFICALLY did and how he did it instead just this vagueness.)
 
Last edited:
Lord Lore:
You are talking about someone who is ALREADY condemned, your double dipping the chip in the recognition dip not bringing attention to someone who has been entirely ignored. I have seen no good reason to condemn the condemned. When was the last time DurkaDurka was actually relevant? When was the last time they did a god damned thing?

And the fact that its not needed is only the icing on the cake of sillyness. The thing is sooo problematically written. Paragraph 3 is pretentious as all hell and balances on almost being apologetic for their actions. I also find 6 to be problematically. It basically condemns them for the actions of other people. Dourian did a bad thing so DurkaDurka bad. And 7 is so vaguely worded that for all I know DurkaDurka set up an sandwich shop in TSP (and for the love of god adding "Durkadurkastan II metaphorically jumped at the chance" is just bad writing, its just flat out childish and reads like a joke where a joke should not be. Instead of telling me about his game of hop scotch actually give me details of what he SPECIFICALLY did and how he did it instead just this vagueness.)
Click to expand...

Calm down, jeez. I'm just going to repeat what I said earlier. The first resolution is only relevant for TNP and doesn't contain all of his conquests. And, Durk last couped a region in 2013, I still don't think that takes anything away from this. In regards to your thoughts on Douria, Douria only gave him his account. Durk is the one who purged thousands of nations from Osiris and claimed it for Gatesville, not Douria. Also, I don't think the part on Milograd is so vaguely worded. To avoid a rule violation, it was edited to seem more realistic and in-character than "Milograd let Durk use his account." While Douria also did that, it would be foolish to use the same exact terms. Onto another topic, paragraph 3 doesn't make them seem apologetic at all. It's literally expressing grief over him "turning to the dark side", while wondering what pushed him to do so.
 
Took me a minute to notice that you responded because of the improper formatting in your response that hid your reply to me in your quote. (yet somehow still put "against" below it.)

Anyways, the resolution reads more like a laundry list than something that is creative and cares about the history. Seems uninspired and rushed because of that. I am glad that you see the value in keeping the original resolution there as well and while there were concerns with it, therefore Im willing to look past it. My concern over the writing still bothers me (especially the over-formatting of the beginning of the lines... but thats a pet peeve of mine and I'm usually not petty enough to vote against over)
 
TlomzKrano:
Took me a minute to notice that you responded because of the improper formatting in your response that hid your reply to me in your quote. (yet somehow still put "against" below it.)

Anyways, the resolution reads more like a laundry list than something that is creative and cares about the history. Seems uninspired and rushed because of that. I am glad that you see the value in keeping the original resolution there as well and while there were concerns with it, therefore Im willing to look past it. My concern over the writing still bothers me (especially the over-formatting of the beginning of the lines... but thats a pet peeve of mine and I'm usually not petty enough to vote against over)
Click to expand...

How exactly does it read like a laundry list? Thanks for your timely response anyway. :)

EDIT: I appreciate that you are willing to look past that. Mind changing your vote to Abstain, then?
 
Last edited:
To me, paragraph three feels out of place in the condemnation. While it may be interesting to ponder what started him down his path, I feel that the conjectural nature makes it unnecessary.

Paragraphs 6 and 7 sound more like they're condemning Douria and Milo, with Durk appearing as just an accomplice to the main villain. Also please remove the "metaphorically", no one would ever read it as him literally jumping.

As for now, voting for Abstain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top