[SC - WITHDRAWN] Repeal: "Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders"

---

Security Council Resolution #73 “Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders” shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The Security Council,

Holding both that acts of forum destruction are a terrible crime and that Allied States of EuroIslanders were accountable for the acts described in SC#73 Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders;

Observing that acts of forum destruction are almost always viewed as heinous crimes worthy of permanent shunning;

Noting that similar acts of forum destruction have not been viewed as worthy of condemnation and that recognition of them in any manner is considered antithetical to decent international society;

Concluding that SC#73 Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders should be repealed given that the described actions of forum destruction should not be recognized in any manner by this body;

Hereby repeals SC#73 Condemn Allied States of EuroIslanders.

Click to expand...

Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.

---

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!

---

For

I don't believe that the argument "it didn't happen in X case, therefore it shouldn't be condemned in other cases" holds much weight for me. I could understand "it's such a heinous crime that it ought not receive our recognition period", but personally Against.

Hulldom:

I don't believe that the argument "it didn't happen in X case, therefore it shouldn't be condemned in other cases" holds much weight for me. I could understand "it's such a heinous crime that it ought not receive our recognition period", but personally Against.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it should have been stated better in the proposal itself, but the particular argument was meant to be closer to “it wasn’t done in other cases because it is that bad” rather than “wasn’t condemned in other cases because not that bad.”

Apparently doesn’t come through properl, but that’s my bad for not thinking that angle (I think, it’s been awhile since the line was originally drafted and I’m not entirely sure my original reasoning).

Present

Present

Against

Present. Messing with offsite forums should not be immortalized in an IC SC condemnation. That said:

Lord Dominator:

Apparently doesn’t come through properl, but that’s my bad for not thinking that angle (I think, it’s been awhile since the line was originally drafted and I’m not entirely sure my original reasoning).

Click to expand...

...please take more care when drafting these things, people.

Here’s what I don’t understand. Looking back at the previous debate on this, you had the exact same issues with wording and not clearly articulating your argument. So a year and a half go by and you don’t make any changes that address that problem and you’re still taking flak for a muddled message? And you had Cretox back you with a second TG and he’s now supporting it while taking a shot at you for your imprecise language? That strikes me as super sloppy.

I have hated the argument you’re making here for a long time. I do not subscribe to the badge of honor in all cases argument for condemnations. I believe they were designed to bring shame and symbolically mark their targets for being bad actors. Some bad actors like being bad others do not. Of course the weight you give to either response is crucial in deciding if you go forward with a condemnation. But I believe we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and that these things have nuance. Arguing that this bad act, which does exist in an IC sense, is so bad we can’t condemn it because of OOC doesn’t work for me, and is clearly playing by the same tiles as the people who don’t want to reward bad acts with…our IC mechanism to shame them for them.

There are acts clearly beyond the scope of this game that shouldn’t be memorialized and shouldn’t touch on what we do with the game, and they aren’t mentioned in new resolutions and can cause old ones to be repealed. I’m fine with that. I’m also fine with blacklisting players on these grounds. I don’t believe this particular one rises to this level, and I do not want to give further oxygen to a contingent that would render condemnations entirely superficial and fluffy. They can have some teeth and as been attested many times, they do bite their targets when deployed properly. This one is doing its job. You shouldn’t repeal condemnations that actually succeed in shaming their target, and that are not serving as a badge of honor. You shouldn’t repeal condemnations that actually denounce IC bad acts. Personally, I don’t believe you should repeal condemnations that add variety to what the condemnations can be used for. We’re “not allowed” to condemn raiders for raiding, now we’re not allowed to condemn bad guys for destroying forums. We can only condemn Disney villains and colorful characters who answer issues a certain way I guess.

I lament the loss of nuance.

Against

Pallaith:

Here’s what I don’t understand. Looking back at the previous debate on this, you had the exact same issues with wording and not clearly articulating your argument. So a year and a half go by and you don’t make any changes that address that problem and you’re still taking flak for a muddled message? And you had Cretox back you with a second TG and he’s now supporting it while taking a shot at you for your imprecise language? That strikes me as super sloppy.

Click to expand...

I will take the loss/mistake on that one - I didn’t look close enough at my own writing to realize it actually retained specific elements of “badge of honor” wording, not when I was too focused on arguing with other individuals who (being opposed to the idea in principle) seemed to be describing the totality, rather than the specific line. Might be made better, might not be - depending on how this goes here and now.

Pallaith:

I lament the loss of nuance.

Click to expand...

I’m snipping the rest for the sake of space, but I think you know I agree on nearly all of that - about raider condemns or most other acts. I obviously don’t agree on matters of OOC acts, but I have no more wish to give those certain groups more ammunition than you (believing this is more important than that aside).

Both of these general bits may be potentially alleviated by certain declaration ideas I have (especially the former), but we’ll see.

Thanks for this Pallaith, I appreciate disagreement on this from people I did not already expect to be automatically against nor for the reasons as they typically present them (and I am serious, as much as I can be).

Present

Lord Dominator:

I appreciate disagreement on this from people I did not already expect to be automatically against nor for the reasons as they typically present them (and I am serious, as much as I can be).

Click to expand...

I feel like I should share my reasoning as well.

I think that the gameplay history of the loss of face and subsequent decline of RLA is worth memorializing, and the misdeeds involved deserve condemnation. It was those acts which led to COPS as part of the general consensus that forum destruction is beyond the pale.

If we are willing to commend for contributions to offsite fora, it makes sense to condemn for damage to them.

I'm not convinced that ASE enjoys this condemnation as a badge of honor, and I think the condemnation deserves to exist.

Against

Present and non-wa duh

Present

Against

Against.

Present

Against

This proposal has received the requisite approvals to enter the formal queue. Barring it being withdrawn or marked illegal, it will proceed to a vote at Friday’s Major Update.

This proposal has been withdrawn by the author. Accordingly, thread locked.