[PASSED] Repeal "Condemn The Black Riders"

[Wetwork XIII]

Nephmir, I have trouble taking assertions of honesty seriously (regardless of context) from someone who tags their region 'Neutral', let alone 'NatSov' and then behaves as your region does. You wanted to antagonise TBR and the Unity in general and you did. Buy your ticket, take the ride.

That said, if you actually can contribute to the NatSov cause with a res, as opposed to whatever the hells your current stance really is, I would be interested in reading it.

[Blood Wine]

Who cares about underlying reasons? the fact of the matter is still that this resolution is horrible and should be repealed,it barely even passed

[Wetwork XIII]

Because the underlying reasons colour the intent, the implied effects and how they are implemented as well as the stated ones to a lesser degree.
It's one of the reasons this body has proven so malleable in the past, and sometimes borders on the ridiculous in terms of stated reasons and actual motivations.

Forgive me for wanting an organisation with the power to intervene in gameplay mechanics to have some motivational transparency about it. I'm old fashioned like that.

[Cormac A Stark]

If The Black Riders feel threatened enough by The Eternal Knights that a simple embassy inspires this level of concern, that really says more about The Black Riders and the effect The Eternal Knights are having on you than anything to do with Osiris, or me.

I revived this proposal because I've been trying to repeal SC#91 for months, since even before I pre-replaced it with SC#127. As to the timing, you can assume whatever you want. I know what my motives were, and as usual I don't care what others think they were. The quality of SC#91 isn't being improved by the questioning of my motives.

In any event, I still plan to have a second draft up within the next day or two and to submit this within the next week or so.

[Wetwork XIII]

Concern. Yes.

The quality of your resolution stands on it's own however people wish to judge it. Your motivations are absolutely up for debate however, and I find the concept of stifling that based on whatever light you feel it's casting on your passed resolution to be...odd.

Looking forward to the second draft, hopefully we can wrap things up in one neat package.

[Mekhet]

That's a pretty big stretch. Didn't Gest say I'm supposed to be the paranoid one?

You being a member in TEK forum and Nephmir being one in Osiris is enough, Osiris having an embassy with an enemy of Raider Unity, a region that attacks fellow raiders.

I personally don't care who Cormac affiliates with, but first off, Osiris aka OFO is an Imperialist region. Imperialism may honour Raider Unity, but it does not subscribe to it like a Raider Purist group does.

Secondly, TEK asked for a consulate not an embassy. While that may not seem like a big difference to you, it's not entirely the same even if it functions the same. All a Consulate does is recognize the existence of another group and allows them to interact on a diplomatic level. Embassies on the other hand are held in higher esteem think High Nobility to the Consulates burghers. Everything else are peasants. That analogy is the best I can think of to describe that right now.

[Feuer Ritter]

You being a member in TEK forum and Nephmir being one in Osiris is enough, Osiris having an embassy with an enemy of Raider Unity, a region that attacks fellow raiders.

I personally don't care who Cormac affiliates with, but first off, Osiris aka OFO is an Imperialist region. Imperialism may honour Raider Unity, but it does not subscribe to it like a Raider Purist group does.

Secondly, TEK asked for a consulate not an embassy. While that may not seem like a big difference to you, it's not entirely the same even if it functions the same. All a Consulate does is recognize the existence of another group and allows them to interact on a diplomatic level. Embassies on the other hand are held in higher esteem think High Nobility to the Consulates burghers. Everything else are peasants. That analogy is the best I can think of to describe that right now.

You can't be an affiliate of the raider unity and demand respect from raiders when you "interact at a diplomatic level" with a well known enemy of the raiders. Whatever you may call it embassy or consulate. And expecially when is happening right after a dispute, it will be seen as offensive.

[Gest]

I know what my motives were...

We all know your motive. Its super transparent. Why the necessity of disguising it? People who are going to vote for the repeal wouldn't care if you're doing it as part of a grudge. We're certainly not fooled and I doubt you care what we think. So who exactly is the mark?

[Mekhet]

I personally don't care who Cormac affiliates with, but first off, Osiris aka OFO is an Imperialist region. Imperialism may honour Raider Unity, but it does not subscribe to it like a Raider Purist group does.

Secondly, TEK asked for a consulate not an embassy. While that may not seem like a big difference to you, it's not entirely the same even if it functions the same. All a Consulate does is recognize the existence of another group and allows them to interact on a diplomatic level. Embassies on the other hand are held in higher esteem think High Nobility to the Consulates burghers. Everything else are peasants. That analogy is the best I can think of to describe that right now.

You can't be an affiliate of the raider unity and demand respect from raiders when you "interact at a diplomatic level" with a well known enemy of the raiders. Whatever you may call it embassy or consulate. And expecially when is happening right after a dispute, it will be seen as offensive.

I'm speaking strictly of Osiris, which is Imperialist, you should know better. Any dispute you have with Cormac and Neph though is separate. Take it up with Sev or something if you don't like OFO being "friendly" with TEK by having a consulate.

[Feuer Ritter]

You can't be an affiliate of the raider unity and demand respect from raiders when you "interact at a diplomatic level" with a well known enemy of the raiders. Whatever you may call it embassy or consulate. And expecially when is happening right after a dispute, it will be seen as offensive.

I'm speaking strictly of Osiris, which is Imperialist, you should know better. Any dispute you have with Cormac and Neph though is separate. Take it up with Sev or something if you don't like OFO being "friendly" with TEK by having a consulate.

Cormac is a representative of Osiris, it can't be taken separately as he spoke and made this arrangements in the name of Osiris.

[Drop Your Pants]

Cormac is a representative of Osiris, it can't be taken separately as he spoke and made this arrangements in the name of Osiris.

So Osiris proposed this repeal?

[Cormac A Stark]

Second draft is up. I trust it better reflects the motives The Black Riders are ascribing to me; and you're right, Gest, I don't care what you think. Silly me for trying to be reasonable. Won't happen again!

The second draft will be up for a day or two before submission.

[Mekhet]

I'm speaking strictly of Osiris, which is Imperialist, you should know better. Any dispute you have with Cormac and Neph though is separate. Take it up with Sev or something if you don't like OFO being "friendly" with TEK by having a consulate.

Cormac is a representative of Osiris, it can't be taken separately as he spoke and made this arrangements in the name of Osiris.

Yeah, that's nice. Good way to paint my region. You know, I'm always up for TBR to get a better written condemnation and I'm opposed to this repeal. Hell, I'd support a commendation of TBR too.

Your beef with TEK and Cormac is with TEK and Cormac, NOT Osiris. Keep it that way. Cormac wrote this, Osiris did not.

[Cormac A Stark]

Yeah, that's nice. Good way to paint my region. You know, I'm always up for TBR to get a better written condemnation and I'm opposed to this repeal. Hell, I'd support a commendation of TBR too.

Your beef with TEK and Cormac is with TEK and Cormac, NOT Osiris. Keep it that way. Cormac wrote this, Osiris did not.

They already have a better written condemnation. I even wrote it for them, which seems to have slipped their minds.

Their beef regarding relations with TEK, however, really is with Osiris and not me. I'm not going to delve further into that here as it's off-topic, but I'm happy to address it in either Osiris' or TBR's Gameplay embassy if someone from TBR wants to bring it up over there. Naturally, I'm also happy to privately address it.

[Tim-Opolis]

The amended version of this proposal is a true work of art. In fact, only WASC #74 made me shed greater tears of joy at the pure art within it. It's safe to say I will continue actively supporting this, and applaud Cormac for making the language more accurately highlight the true nature of The Black Riders.

[Applebania]

It's so... beautiful...

[Cormac A Stark]

This proposal has been submitted.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I am putting my hat into the ring and approving this proposal.

You're right on the repeal, and I will mention that I fully support this and, if I continue to be a delegate by the time it reaches quorum, I will gladly stamp my approval on this.

[Dubnia]

While I feel that the fact that they are the only (?) region that has received two condemnations, it may have emboldened them to do more raiding, I feel that taking away one of their condemnations may do the same thing, as though the defenders and neutral nations are coming to embrace raiding. Either way, I simply feel that by changing something, The Black Riders may feel as though our attitude towards them is changing. For example, I have noticed that condemnation of very active raiders is regarded almost like a right of passage, when there was a proposal to condemn [nation=short+noflag]At Sea[/nation], he actually approved it. Therefore, while I support the premise of the repeal, I feel it is absolutely not practical, and may only embolden them in their actions more.

[Nordenwald]

I support this.

The Black Riders deserve a condemnation, not two. All of my reasons have already been previously stated by other nations, so I won't waste your time with my list.

Honestly, I've been pondering ways to create a 'Commend the Black Riders', however, I've found it very challenging to come up with things TBR has done that are worthy of a commendation.

[Quelsh]

You know what? Why don't we use reverse pyschology against them and Commend them.

Yes.

[Cormac A Stark]

I don't think commending them would bother them. They seek attention; they don't particularly care in what form or from where the attention comes. That's pretty clear from the fact that their two occupation Delegates, Duck-Boss and Kikpar, are voting against repealing one of the worst resolutions in Security Council history just to keep a second badge on their region.

[The Sotoan Union]

"Determining that permitting two condemnations of The Black Riders to remain in force grants The Black Riders greater recognition before the Security Council than they deserve and creates an unwarranted climate of fear, which may be interpreted by The Black Riders as a perverse reward for their destructive behavior:"

I have a problem with this statement. That logic can be applied to any condemnation. From that point of view we shouldn't give out condemnations at all.

[Cormac A Stark]

"Determining that permitting two condemnations of The Black Riders to remain in force grants The Black Riders greater recognition before the Security Council than they deserve and creates an unwarranted climate of fear, which may be interpreted by The Black Riders as a perverse reward for their destructive behavior:"

I have a problem with this statement. That logic can be applied to any condemnation. From that point of view we shouldn't give out condemnations at all.

I disagree. One condemnation of The Black Riders is certainly appropriate; they have tag raided thousands of regions, raided and occupied at least a dozen, and completely destroyed a few. All for no reason except that they wanted to do so. That is deserving of condemnation, even if they may want the condemnation.

Two condemnations are excessive and create the impression that they are to be more recognized and feared than, for example, Lone Wolves United and The Black Hawks, both of which have only one Security Council condemnation. Arguments can be made that both of those regions have had a more significant impact on gameplay and on the regions they've raided than The Black Riders.

It's appropriate to condemn The Black Riders for their actions, but it's inappropriate to put them on a pedestal of fear and loathing that makes them stand out from the crowd. It becomes all the more inappropriate when their first condemnation is terribly written and is so generalized and ridiculous in its claims that it really doesn't tell anyone anything about The Black Riders and what they've done.

[YoriZ]

I'm very pleased with this proposal.
I vote FOR!