Security Council Resoloution: Condem Southern Bellz

[Sovereign Dixie]

Description: DENOUNCING The Smoking Gun of Southern Bellz for interfering with a free and fair election by tampering with an election in progress and corruptly maintaining power, through the unjust ejection of candidate nations.

AWARE that universally applied principles of international law mandate the democratic election of Regional Delegates by providing in every region of the world that the nation with the most endorsements at the time of the votes are counted is automatically elected Regional Delegate;

NOTING that the nation of The Allied States of Devonitians replaced The Smoking Gun of Southern Bellz and became Regional Delegate of the South Pacific by using this democratic, universally accepted method of election,

APPRECIATING that The Allied States of Devonitians respected democratic rule by announcing free elections and by inviting and allowing all nations in the South Pacific to freely endorse other nations so as to freely and democratically select a new Regional Delegate,

UNDERSTANDING that after convincing enough nations to unendorse The Allied States of Devonitians, The Smoking Gun of Southern Bellz resumed the role of Regional Delegate,

RECOGNIZING that at the time The Smoking Gun of Southern Bellz resumed the role of Regional Delegate a democratic election was still in progress,

APPALLED that upon returning to power The Smoking Gun of Southern Bellz suspended democratic rule to remain in power, violating the political and civil rights of the nations of the South Pacific with a campaign of repression which included:

* Unilaterally terminating an election in progress,
* placing the South Pacific under a state of martial law,
* ejecting candidate nations which had received valid endorsements,
* effectively destroying the votes of nations which endorsed the candidate nations

NOTING that such actions effect democratic decision making of the world community because the Regional Delegate of the South Pacific with it's large number of votes has outsized influence over if resolutions pass or fail in the World Assembly;

PROTESTING that by ejecting candidate nations involved in an on-going election The Smoking Gun of Southern Bellz not only interfered with the civil and political rights of said nations, but effectively engaged in vote tampering by effectively destroying the ballots of a approximately 100 nations which the two candidate nations prior to ejection;

DENOUNCING the disenfranchisement of over 100 nations during an on-going election as an unwarranted attack on the right of the nations of a region to democratically select a Regional Delegate;

FINDING such actions to be dangerous, discriminatory, and a threat to the right of nations to democratically choose Regional Delegates;

FEARING such corruption and disregard for the spirit of democratic rule may spread unless these corrupt and undemocratic actions are condemned.

HOPING that by publicly condemning The Smoking Gun of Southern Bellz the Security Council will discourage other nations from the deplorable and undemocratic practice of undermining, tampering with or otherwise interfering with on-going elections;

The nations of the Security Council hereby condemn The Smoking Gun of Southern Bellz.

[Eluvatar]

Nay.

Not only do we love the awesome sOuthern bellz Character, but also this condemnation is disingenuous and an attack on the very idea of feeder democracy.

[Sovereign Dixie]

Well, I don't honestly know enough about the situation to have an opinion one way or the other. Though the idea that someone is using it as an attack of sorts is certainly plausible.

[Sovereign Dixie]

After learning some more about the situation, I too, weigh in against this condemnation.

[PoD Gunner]

I could never endorse a campaign aimed at condemning a nation that has 'smoking gun' in their name. Nay.

[Romanar]

I say neigh.

[Sovereign Dixie]

Hello,

I noticed you have voted against the resolution to condemn Southern Bellz. I respect your decision and promise not to ask you to vote in favor of the proposal, all I ask is that you read and consider these points.

NS Rules, the law, so to speak, is that the nation with the most endorsements in the region becomes Regional Delegate. Any nation can endorse any other nation, hence all players can run for, vote and enjoy the experience.

Many regions have off-site forums where people can RP at governing, setting up legislatures and pass laws that effect the region, and many regions establish laws on the conduct of elections. This can be a fun aspect of NS, and many people enjoy it. But the rules do have the effect of modifying how a regional delegate is selected.

Some time long ago players on an off-site forum of the South Pacific region created a rule that no nation can run for delegate of the South Pacific without spending at least three months on an off site forum. How many players endorsed this rule is unclear, it could have been just a few, I don’t know, nor do I know how many of these players are still active. Of course the off-site forum government could change the rule if it chooses, but that is not my point.

The South Pacific is a feeder region. It has nearly 5,000 nations, I read somewhere it had about 400 WA nations. The majority of these nations never visited or participated in the off-site forum. But because of a rule adopted by a few players over 99% of the nations in the South Pacific that are WA members are effectively banned from having the opportunity to be elected delegate, unless they join an off site forum.

This means the majority of players who want to play NS by the rules of NS are denied the opportunity to participate in a major aspect of the game -- electing, running for and becoming Delegate -- unless they join an off site forum, which many people do not want to do. Now in a non-feeder region this makes a certain amount of sense, after all the region is created for a specific purpose, but is it really fair for a tiny group of players in a major feeder region to be able to make it so difficult for the vast majority of people who want to play according to the game rules from the fun and excitement of playing by the original rules in a region of 5,000 nations?

Pure democracy, with everyone deciding things on the principle of one person, one vote, without ant other rules - it may be impractical in the real world. But this is a simulation game, and wouldn’t it be exciting to see what would happen if that were the rule? NS rules with nothing else. Not just in some small region, but in a 5,000 nation feeder region, with new nations being born all the time. Wouldn’t that be fun to try? Now this resolution won’t make that happen, but it will send a message to delegates of larger regions about how people feel about that.

Requiring a three month period on an off-site forum might be reasonable in a non-feeder region, but don’t the players who want to play by the actual NS rules have the opportunity to fully participate, or is the full enjoyment of the NS experience something that only an elite group of people should be permitted to enjoy while the rest of us are treated, as one NS descriptor put it, as “my little playthings” by the few dozen seasoned players who have been involved in this game for years.

Doesn‘t everyone have the right to play and have fun?

The resolution to condemn Southern Bellz is a simulated experience in international politics. It talks about voting, and democracy. But how this issue is decided and whether or not a tiny elite group should be able to dictate to 99% of the players in a region that they must add requirements to the original game rules, or not be allowed to play is, in a sense, a very real issue of politics and governance.

I ask you, is it fair to use a rule made by a few players in an off-site forum to keep all the other players, most of whom have never been on the forum, from having the opportunity to play by NS rules on running for delegate and acquiring endorsements? Having a 3 month off-site forum requirement in a 5,000 nation region is nothing more then a way for a tiny group of players to assure that only a small group have the chance and opportunity to play NS, and that none of us get the opportunity to play it by the original rules in the exciting environment of a 5,000 player region.

In a sense this vote is a very real opportunity to change the way the game is played and has the potential to turn the South Pacific in to a region where that can happen. That is what is at stake in this vote, and as such this vote has the potential to create a new and exciting experience for hundreds of players.

Now I promised I would not ask you to vote for this resolution, and I will keep that promise. Instead I just want to ask you to consider if any of what I’m saying makes sense. You do not need to support the condemnation of Southern Bellz for this argument to make sense to you. Nor do you have to vote against it. If some of these arguments make sense, you need not vote on this issue at all. Simply withdraw your vote and sit back and see what happens. I thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Best regards,

Che Memorial Park

P.S. As a lone player taking on the resources of a feeder region this has been a fun, but exhausting experience. I thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts. And although I did promise not to ask you to vote for my resolution if you do decide to do so, I would, of course, welcome the support. Oh, and don’t forget to have a nice weekend!

Got this sent to me after I voted against...

Fuckin' morons.....

I still LOL'd a little though, even in spite of the fact that it annoyed me.

[Gulliver]

I lol'd.

[Sovereign Dixie]

Should I reply with

"Cool story, bro."

?

[PoD Gunner]

*crushes skull by sitting with his ass on Che Memorial Park's head*

PS As owner of a single ass, this has been a lonely yet somehow pleasant experience. You know, I promised to you to not ask you to put your head into my ass but now that I have sat on it I thank you for offering my ass something to sit on. Oh and don't forget to have a nice after-life.

[Eluvatar]

Should I reply with

"Cool story, bro."

?

YES

[Gulliver]

Should I reply with

"Cool story, bro."

?

Safer to go with "COOL STORY BRO".