NationStates

Sichuan Pepper wrote:

Nephmir wrote:
Further Acknowledging that General Halcones is responsible for leading raids on more than half of these regions, executing innocent World Assembly Delegates and forcibly removing natives from their homes,

How do you execute a Nation?

Noted.

@Chester P. and Ramaeus and experienced Defender Affiliated WA-SC author veterans:

Regardless living on the other side of the fence, I still ask friendly is it possible you personally would take an assignment for writing Good Condemnation proposal for General Halcones? Process could take its time, requiring also Repeal Draft for this Submitted proposal reached already in quorum. I can help with gathering necessary sources and answering questions that does not comproment any confidential matters related to The Black Riders' Core Activity.

You all should consider it as a Honor. Making of important proposals should not be left on the hands of novices, careerists and generally to people who has no capacity write decent high profile Drafts. It's now about condemning the man, whom has certainly earned his condemnation as a token for his tireless and never ending task for development of the Raiderdom as a whole.

Could we at least once reject petty politicing in WA SC and just push through this one together. As long as General Halcones is not Condemned, nobody else can be really considered Condemnworthy. That is My Point here.

- Cora The Secretary -

Chester Pearson wrote:

Nephmir wrote:In the same way a nation can be a delegate, or a member of an organization like the World Assembly.

Can we stop pestering the mods for once?

Stop submitting illegal proposals then....

Dude, the mod just said that this proposal is not illegal.

Nephmir wrote:

Chester Pearson wrote:Stop submitting illegal proposals then....

I... I'm not even going to bother.

In fact, from this moment on, I am done posting in these forums.

Just ignore Chester - from everything I've seen on Nationstates, which isn't that much, he seems like a special breed of troll.
Maybe a half-troll half-minimod, if the term minimod is used here?
Because, from what I've seen on other forums, he's acting almost exactly like a mix of the two; I'm not saying they're the same or close enough to be considered the same, but that's exactly what I'm saying, actually.

Note on conventional meaning of 'Execute' in the terminology of The Black Riders.

Everytime elected World Assembly Delegate of a region targeted by raiders is seized we use term "Executed WAD", thus term refers only to ending some WAD's reign with force and with intention by raiding the region with the elected delegate.

When term 'WA-kill' is used it refers to a situation where any WA member nation is ejected and banned from the region (Sending such nation to The Rejected Realms and preventing its movement back to the region). Note, WA Delegates can be 'WA-killed" as they are WA member nations, but also that WA member founders can be 'killed' alike. Founders can be also WADs and thus we can use term 'Founder-WAD-Kill' when successfully 'Executing' WA delegate which is also the founder of same region and banjected out of own founded region.

Synonymous terms meaning "Execution of WAD" are also 'Dethroned', 'Scalped', 'Decapitated' etc...

This terminology refers only to nation's status in game when being under threat of direct attack by raiders seizing Delegate and/or using delegate powers for banjecting nations out of regions. Nobody can attack against nation itself in this game by using basic game mechanics, even less against the player behind such nation.

I see this has been yanked. Was is Neph, or a mod?

Yerklovakia wrote:Just ignore Chester - from everything I've seen on Nationstates, which isn't that much, he seems like a special breed of troll.
Maybe a half-troll half-minimod, if the term minimod is used here?
Because, from what I've seen on other forums, he's acting almost exactly like a mix of the two; I'm not saying they're the same or close enough to be considered the same, but that's exactly what I'm saying, actually.

*** Warned for trollnaming and flamebaiting ***

Chester Pearson wrote:I see this has been yanked. Was is Neph, or a mod?

It was removed for this illegality.

And changed to from "executing" to "attacking".

Volanowsh wrote:

Chester Pearson wrote:
Successful? I wouldn't exactly call raiding a bunch of one and two nation regions and tagging their WFE's successful....

Now the Hawks on the other hand are successful.

Wait... did someone forget to tell this guy, or is he playing ignorant?

Hmmm, I wonder who first founded TBH...

That would be Halcones of course

The illegality has been removed and the proposal resubmitted.

Nephmir wrote:Greetings.

I have submitted this proposal and edited the OP accordingly. [...]

I have bumped this thread before anyone creates a new one. Feel free to debate the proposal. I won't be posting here, so if you have any concerns beyond that of questioning or insulting my mental state or "lol k", feel free to telegram me directly.

Nephmir

Ah! It's 'Let's condemn Halcones'-time again. Proposal is not best possible ever, but enough good and factually correct for the never ending needs of WA for piling papers, so let's baby sit and crush this one through the process together!

Halc is certainly deserved his Badge of Honor being #1 to be Condemned by his actions in this game. Beside, the Molok of Security Council always demand new papers put to it's throat and as this proposal leaves a lot room for further improvements will be that need also assured in the future.

Note: Biggest factual error in the Proposal seems being estimate of how big percentage of TBR raids has been led by General Halcones himself as it is near 20%, maybe maximum 30% of all raids, not "More than half of these regions". Further Noting, that if General Halcones is online it is automatic he also lead TBR raiding activities and that his overall input to the raiding activity in NS cannot be reasonably evaluated by looking only to his published update activity.

Has Halc said he is okay being nominated by Neph?

Topid wrote:Has Halc said he is okay being nominated by Neph?

For a commend it's decorum to ask. For a condemn not so.

That said, I do find it most amusing that Nephmir, leader of TEK, the "glorious" raiders of NS, is slamming Halc for the same. Pot, meet kettle.

That's why I didn't think this was a slambut rather recognizing a good tagger.

Topid wrote:That's why I didn't think this was a slambut rather recognizing a good tagger.

A good tagger?

Chester Pearson wrote:

Topid wrote:That's why I didn't think this was a slambut rather recognizing a good tagger.

A good tagger?

Uhh, yeah, Halc was a good tagger. Is that doubted?

Topid wrote:

Chester Pearson wrote:
A good tagger?

Uhh, yeah, Halc was a good tagger. Is that doubted?

I am confused as to how tagger, and good can be used in the same sentence.....

Ah, I see. Good in the sense of being good at something. Halc was good at tagging.

Since this proposal hasn't curled up and died yet, is there somewhere you can submit requests for rules, so that we can require citations for claims, and make it a rule that for condemnations one must put more than a half-assed effort into researching a nation?
Regardless of allegiance, this proposal mentions literally nothing about the condemned nation's history with The Black Hawks, and despite it not being a requirement for condemnations, it has always bothered me that condemnations can be submitted with whatever claims the author likes, without needing to provide any proof.

For god's sake, Jakker's Condemnation, and Gest's condemnation both have more body to them than this, and as for Gest's, its outdated.

Aurum Rider wrote:-snip-

Bad resolutions occasionally have a habit of being repealed.

Is this resolution a test to see if common folks vote can overwhelm the GCR tyrants?

what are raiders, and what are the black riders, exactly?

Sadly,this is the best the SC can come up with

Strong meh over here. While Halc is a decent target for a condemn, this isn't particularly well-written.

I've voted against, as per Camelot's forum poll.

Considering that most the arguments against are nonsequitors or merely technical, and none of the arguers have submitted a better one that i have noticed.

Also considering most arguments for are also nonsequitors, i reverted to argument for me..to the most basic part of this, which someone else provided earlier.

And also seeing the argument that condemns embolden as specious regardless of the appearance of it being true. (Were it true, even the in shortterm, it is also an argument that it does not hurt them so it can hardly be accused of being heavy handed or "Wrong" due of its severity on a minimal platform which was aptly addressed as not doing anything? hm)

I consider voting FOR to at least be affirmation of the spirit and intent of the existence of SC based on the minimal aspects actually in it, and there is no reason to not vote FOR that is not emboldening raiders or trolls in itself.

However, i do note, I only have this as limited to a mere minor condemnation until the SC bothers to get sharper teeth AND better and more proposals. Which i recommend you as a whole or in part, affect without arguing about its technical merits itself until you have a framework to work from. It could be argued that any resistance to that, is emboldening the wrong parties in itself.

Thank you for your time.