[DEFEATED] Repeal Condemn The Black Hawks

[Sedgistan]

THE SECURITY COUNCIL,

AWARE of the existence and intent of the Resolution Condemn The Black Hawks, henceforth known as CTBH,

REALIZING the claims of CTBH about raiding, and finding them absolutely false,

INFORMING the international community that raiding is indeed legal, that it is here to stay, that it is not underregulated as regulation is not needed at all, and that unsportsmanlike conduct can be found on both the sides of Raiders and Defenders,

BELIEVING that the Security Council should take more time to determine an official blanket position on raiding and not something hastily included in such a resolution as CTBH, where no expansion or elucidation was given and no explanation for such an inflammatory view was given,

AWARE that many nations have 'conspired' different Security Council proposals, such as, for example, a repeal of 'Condemn NAZI EUROPE' or repeal 'Condemn Macedon' or a repeal of 'Condemn Great Nepal' and believing the drafting of those is not worthy of being mentioned in a condemnation, similar to a drafting of 'Commend The Black Hawks', and also noting that 'Commend The Black Hawks' did not even come up to vote, unlike 'Repeal Condemn NAZI EUROPE' or 'Repeal Condemn Great Nepal' making it even less worthy of inclusion in a condemnation,

INFORMING nations that after CTBH was passed there was no targeting by The Black Hawks, contrary to the mindless speculation included in CTBH,

AWARE that CTBH claims that The Black Hawks have endangered the functioning and survival of The Security Council, yet The Black Hawks have no WA delegate, and there are far more defender regions involved in The Security Council, such as 10000 Islands, Eastern Islands of Dharma, Jethnea, Global Right Alliance, and others than raider regions involved in The Security Council, of which there are none,

REALIZING that The Black Hawks avoid using regional bans in most cases, except for in cases of regions that give them trouble, a notable example here is Vlaanderen, where The Black Hawks did a proper raid, albeit one poorly executed, and the region was not password protected, and the region has now been passed back to the natives,

DISGUSTED at the fearmongering tactics used in CTBH and sincerely wishing that these tactics not be used again,

HEREBY REPEALS Security Council Resolution #52 'Condemn The Black Hawks'.

So I've presented a BETTER draft. Since this thread wasn't archived previously, it makes sense to just use the same thread.
2401 characters.

THE SECURITY COUNCIL,

ACKNOWLEDGING the existence and intent of the Resolution Condemn The Black Hawks, abbreviated as CTBH in this resolution,

REALIZING that "region" and "nation" were switched in the 'REALIZING' clause of CTBH, making the clause have little meaning,

COGNIZANT that The Black Hawks use a style of raiding where regions are not taken and held permanently in most cases, contra to what was stated in CTBH,

EXPOUNDING upon this by describing the raiding style of The Black Hawks to be little more than tagging the World Factbook Entry of invaded regions,

BELIEVING that tags on the World Factbook Entry do not have a cooling effect on free speech and democracy,

FEELING that nations all over the world share their opinions without regard to The Black Hawks, proving that The Black Hawks do not have a cooling effect on free speech and democracy,

AWARE that regions with active founders are immune to raids, allowing nations in those regions to have free speech and participate in democracy no matter how many raids The Black Hawks are a part of,

NOTING that the proposal 'Commend The Black Hawks' failed to even reach quorum in the Security Council,

FEELING that a proposal that did not even come up to vote is not worthy of being a reason for a condemnation,

ALSO KNOWING that 'Commend The Black Hawks' had the help of nations outside The Black Hawks and was not a conspiracy by any means of the word,

RECOGNIZING that the Security Council is one of the two branches of the World Assembly and is here to stay, forever and ever, until the demise of this World Assembly itself,

THEREFORE FINDING that The Black Hawks cannot and in no way endanger the survival of the Security Council,

HEREBY REPEALS "Condemn The Black Hawks" for the above reasons.

I tried again. Thoughts?

[Sedgistan]

Have you considered telegramming delegates who've voted for the proposal, to see if they'll change their minds? It tends to be a better first step, particularly when the vote is so close.

[Mahaj]

Have you considered telegramming delegates who've voted for the proposal, to see if they'll change their minds? It tends to be a better first step, particularly when the vote is so close.

Alright...I'll do that.

Also, what do you think of the proposal, though? The repeal, I mean...

[Defero Populus]

I don't like the idea.

If you want proof of controversy ,or an example of poor sportsmanship visit a region that has been raided by the black hawks.

You think the next Black Hawk raid will be on someone who voted for them or against them? Obviously against.

Do you even know what the Black Hawks do they take over a region and kick everyone else out that does have a cooling effect on free speech and the democratic process.

[Mahaj]

I don't like the idea.

I can imagine as much.

[Tur Galnos]

I'd like to see it pass, sounds like they're a menace.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Isn't this entire repeal argument just the sort of baseless, contradictory statements that mods have stated could be grounds for deletion?

[Flemingovia]

I am utterly utterly totally and utterly devastated that you would use such hyperbole as "distraught" in a resolution.

You give no evidence that you are distraught. I expect at the least pictures of screwed up tissues scattered around your computer monitor, updates of your status on facebook to show how distraught you are (with responses from your friends along the lines of "call me, m8 ... I can help.") I expect you to compose bad poetry, write a diary, dress in black and sit in corners at parties sobbing into an alcopop.

In other words, if you are distraught at this condemnation - show us the evidence.

[Motuka]

I am utterly utterly totally and utterly devastated that you would use such hyperbole as "distraught" in a resolution.

But are you truly devastated? In the absence of concrete proof, I'll have to write off your claims entirely.

Here's a better reason to vote against -- note that many prominent raiders are voting for, whereas many prominent defenders are voting against. This suggests that TBH wants the attention a condemnation would grant them, and has gathered support to that end. Include enough "we simply don't think they're notable enough to condemn, anyone can raid another region etc etc" in your campaign TGs and you'd be more likely to get the support of various people who've voted for this current resolution methinks.

This particular repeal seems to have legality issues as it stands; we'll await a Secretariat ruling, assuming the current floor resolution passes.

- Julian Kbitaru, the Red Room

[Tanzoria]

In the event Condemn The Black Hawks Passes

and sorry for having two resolutions drafted at the same time. Not something I normally do, but keeps me occupied, so hey. [shrugs]

THE SECURITY COUNCIL,

ACKNOWLEDGING the existence of the Resolution Condemn The Black Hawks

NOTING that "Condemn The Black Hawks" states that raiding is legal, yet controversial, under-regulated, and frequently unsportsmanlike., yet gives no proof of controversy, a need for regulation, or an example of poor sportsmanship,

REALIZING that the switching of "region" and "nation" makes the 'RECOGNIZING' clause of "Condemn The Black Hawks" have little meaning,

FEELING that proposing to commend your own region is not worthy of a condemnation,

DISTRAUGHT at the claims that voting for "Condemn The Black Hawks" will make that region a target of The Black Hawks,

FINDING little proof that The Black Hawks's raids have had a "cooling effect on free speech and the democratic process.",

KNOWING that The Black Hawks do not "endanger the functioning and survival of the Security Council",

HEREBY REPEALS "Condemn The Black Hawks" for the above reasons.

I will definently vote for this.

[Jasarite]

The Black Hawks are a menace. However, I worry that a condemnation is exactly what they want.

[Tanzoria]

The Black Hawks are a menace. However, I worry that a condemnation is exactly what they want.

Of course it is. Balck Hawks are not a threat, only invading regions with or 2 nations.

[Lokemburg]

I would vote for the Repealing of it.

[Mahaj]

I am utterly utterly totally and utterly devastated that you would use such hyperbole as "distraught" in a resolution.

But are you truly devastated? In the absence of concrete proof, I'll have to write off your claims entirely.

Here's a better reason to vote against -- note that many prominent raiders are voting for, whereas many prominent defenders are voting against. This suggests that TBH wants the attention a condemnation would grant them, and has gathered support to that end. Include enough "we simply don't think they're notable enough to condemn, anyone can raid another region etc etc" in your campaign TGs and you'd be more likely to get the support of various people who've voted for this current resolution methinks.

This particular repeal seems to have legality issues as it stands; we'll await a Secretariat ruling, assuming the current floor resolution passes.

- Julian Kbitaru, the Red Room

Issues? How so?

[Flemingovia]

I am truly devastated, and I offer this picture as proof:

[Parti Ouvrier]

I am truly devastated, and I offer this picture as proof:
(Image)

OOC: Whoa, er, for a short moment I thought that was Nick Clegg after the 5th May local elections.

Ok, I will not support this repeal, although I'd be happy to support the commendation proposal.


CJ
Diplomat for DRPO

The Black Hawks are a menace. However, I worry that a condemnation is exactly what they want.

OOC: Good for them, let them have fun and get what they want then. This game is supposed to be fun and enjoyable afterall.

[Mahaj]

I don't like the idea.

How could I guess?!?!

If you want proof of controversy ,or an example of poor sportsmanship visit a region that has been raided by the black hawks.

Maybe we don't see it as poor sportsmanship, maybe we don't see any controversy. And by the way, you were arguing against ALL of raiding.

You think the next Black Hawk raid will be on someone who voted for them or against them? Obviously against.

Thats not what your resolution says

Do you even know what the Black Hawks do they take over a region and kick everyone else out that does have a cooling effect on free speech and the democratic process.

They do not kick everyone else out, they merely tag the region. Thats not causing a 'cooling effect'.

[Lordieth]

Isn't this entire repeal argument just the sort of baseless, contradictory statements that mods have stated could be grounds for deletion?

What? Are you really comparing these two situations as the same? This repeal is perfectly valid. Also, define 'deletion'. I assume you mean the resolution and not the author but you didn't make that clear. If you're going to link to rule violation, you should at least point out where (if) it has occured.

[Sedgistan]

Isn't this entire repeal argument just the sort of baseless, contradictory statements that mods have stated could be grounds for deletion?

Mahaj, you're going to want to consider this piece of advice before submitting.

[Mahaj]

The ruling Kenny was referring to stated from Ard

Repeals: A REPEAL of a C&C should address the contents of the C&C in question. However, a repeal that consists of nothing but a negative of the original -- eg, Commend X because he is a good guy, Repeal Commend X because he is NOT a good guy -- may be deleted on the grounds that the SC already discussed this in the original debate. (cf "I don't like this" being forbidden in GA Repeal arguments.)

A Commendation or Condemnation is an expression of opinion by the WA. Repealing it is saying that the WA has changed its mind. You should therefore give reasons for the change of mind. These may include matters that have come to light or changed since the original resolution.

I believe that the existence of

REALIZING that the switching of "region" and "nation" makes the 'RECOGNIZING' clause of "Condemn The Black Hawks" have little meaning,

FEELING that proposing to commend your own region is not worthy of a condemnation,

for sure doesn't violate it

the following clauses

NOTING that "Condemn The Black Hawks" states that raiding is legal, yet controversial, under-regulated, and frequently unsportsmanlike, yet gives no proof of controversy, a need for regulation, or an example of poor sportsmanship,

FINDING little proof that The Black Hawks's raids have had a "cooling effect on free speech and the democratic process",

Doesn't say in the repeal that it doesn't happen, but that there is no proof for it. Of course, what I may mean by it is different, but what matters is what is said.

KNOWING that The Black Hawks do not "endanger the functioning and survival of the Security Council",

And that last clause is a complete counter, yes, but I don't think that makes the entire resolution illegal.

[Sedgistan]

The part you need to pay particular attention to is this:

However, a repeal that consists of nothing but a negative of the original -- eg, Commend X because he is a good guy, Repeal Commend X because he is NOT a good guy -- may be deleted on the grounds that the SC already discussed this in the original debate. (cf "I don't like this" being forbidden in GA Repeal arguments.)

Of the clauses in your proposal, the 'Acknowledging' one is meaningless, and the 'Noting', 'Realizing', 'Shocked', 'Finding' and 'Knowing' clauses read simply as a reverse of the resolution. Only the 'Feeling' clause attempts to make an argument that isn't just a negative of what the original resolution says.

This is not a ruling that your proposal is illegal - it's advice. However, if you choose to submit this repeal as it is, then I will have to talk it over with the other mods, and it may well be deemed illegal.

There's two proposals in the queue that have attained quorum already. That means there's at least 8 days until this would come to vote if you submitted it now. I suggest you use at least some of those days to strengthen the arguments in your repeal, so you don't have to worry about it being ruled as illegal.

[Mahaj]

The part you need to pay particular attention to is this:

However, a repeal that consists of nothing but a negative of the original -- eg, Commend X because he is a good guy, Repeal Commend X because he is NOT a good guy -- may be deleted on the grounds that the SC already discussed this in the original debate. (cf "I don't like this" being forbidden in GA Repeal arguments.)

Of the clauses in your proposal, the 'Acknowledging' one is meaningless, and the 'Noting', 'Realizing', 'Shocked', 'Finding' and 'Knowing' clauses read simply as a reverse of the resolution. Only the 'Feeling' clause attempts to make an argument that isn't just a negative of what the original resolution says.

This is not a ruling that your proposal is illegal - it's advice. However, if you choose to submit this repeal as it is, then I will have to talk it over with the other mods, and it may well be deemed illegal.

There's two proposals in the queue that have attained quorum already. That means there's at least 8 days until this would come to vote if you submitted it now. I suggest you use at least some of those days to strengthen the arguments in your repeal, so you don't have to worry about it being ruled as illegal.

I understand what you are saying. I have made some changes, and of course am willing to make more. I wish for the resolution to be legal, and of course there is plenty of time, what with two other proposals in the queue.

[Parti Ouvrier]

Nevertheless, I'll be voting against this repeal. But I will compromise, if you write another attempt at a commendation, I'll vote for that. And by the way, since when is a condemnation necessarily a bad thing?

CJ
Diplomat for the DRPO

[Lordieth]

It's not that it's good or bad. It's undeserved. I fully support this repeal.

[Parti Ouvrier]

It's not that it's good or bad. It's undeserved. I fully support this repeal.

Almost 5,000 WA members certainly disagree with you.