[DEFEATED] Repeal "Condemn The Black Riders"

[Crazy girl]

This is my first attempt at a Security Counsel repeal, so constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated! Obviously, this assumes the matter presently at vote has passed.

Repeal "Condemn The Black Riders"
A resolution to repeal previously enacted legislation.

Category: Repeal | Resolution: SC #91 | Proposed by: Cowardly Pacifists

The Security Council:

AWARE that The Black Riders - commonly referred to by their initials, TBR - are a well-known group of raiders;

ALSO AWARE that TBR generally engage in crashing and tagging regions - a practice that involves temporarily seizing a regional delegacy but ultimately returning control of the region to its natives;

CONCERNED that SC #91 uses misleading language to portray TBR as a much greater threat to international security than they truly are;

OBSERVING that the very first line of SC #91 mistakenly accuses TBR of attempting to "invade other nations," something The Black Riders don't actually do;

FURTHER OBSERVING that SC #91 uses charged terms like "cultural genocide," "terrorize," "terror," "complete defacement," and "horrific seize," to describe the actions of TBR, despite the fact that their crashing and tagging practices are relatively mild compared to the practices of other raiding groups;

NOTING that SC #91 suggests that the actions of TBR led to the "undeniable downfall" of the Region of reunited muslim states, even though the RORMS community retains possession of its native region and is undeniably alive and well;

BELIEVING that the aforementioned instances of exaggeration are all calculated to make World Assembly nations think TBR are especially fearsome and villainous;

AFFIRMING that the World Assembly should never express that it is "FEARFUL" of a raiding group within the text of a condemnation;

SUSPECTING that many of the raiding members of TBR actually support SC #91, which they view as a badge of honor rather than an expression of shock and dismay;

RESOLVED that a condemnation should not serve to exalt or glorify a region for their misdeeds;

CONVINCED that if The Black Riders deserve to be condemned, the text of the condemnation should truly and accurately reflect the nature of their wrongdoing;

HEREBY REPEALS SC #91, "Condemn The Black Riders."

Condemn The Black RIders

RECOGNIZING The Black Riders attempts to terrorize and invade other nations which contradict or challenge their ideology or power,

DISGUSTED by The Black Riders recent "Operation Marathon", where The Black Riders raided and forcibly took control of over 26 regions,

FEARFUL of the frequent invasions conducted weekly by The Black Riders, which lead to more cultural genocide and terror,

APPALLED by The Black Riders encouragement of other allied raiders, raider regions, anti-WA establishments and attitudes,

ALARMED by The Black Riders complete defacement of regions when forcibly assuming the role of regional delegate,

ANGERED by The Black Riders forced removal of those nations which are native to the regions they conquer and in some cases putting in place secret passwords leading the regions to an undeniable downfall such as the passwording of Region of reunited muslim states and 32 day oppressive and horrific seize that followed,

HEREBY condemns The Black Riders

[Sanctaria]

I'm pretty sure it's Security Council, not "Counsel" or "Counsil".

[Jefferson and Paul]

Again, feelings should not be taken into account when it comes to international legislation. If all SC legislation were centered around an emotional stimulant, that is to be provoked in the nominee, then the powers of the SC would be severely limited. You say we should not condemn a region if they see it as an "honor", then, applying the same logic, we should also not commend a region if they will feel a sense of modesty towards their commendation. In addition, we should then also not commend/condemn an entity if the nominee feels a sense of neutrality towards the legislation.

The nominees feelings shouldn't come into account, the duty of the SC is to recognize entities for their accomplishments, whether negative or positive; and our ability to carry this out shouldn't be altered by something so irrelevant such as feelings.

Sorry for grammar flaws or typos, I'm using a touchscreen.

[Ossitania]

Again, feelings should not be taken into account when it comes to international legislation. If all SC legislation were centered around an emotional stimulant, that is to be provoked in the nominee, then the powers of the SC would be severely limited. You say we should not condemn a region if they see it as an "honor", then, applying the same logic, we should also not commend a region if they will feel a sense of modesty towards their commendation. In addition, we should then also not commend/condemn an entity if the nominee feels a sense of neutrality towards the legislation.

The nominees feelings shouldn't come into account, the duty of the SC is to recognize entities for their accomplishments, whether negative or positive; and our ability to carry this out shouldn't be altered by something so irrelevant such as feelings.

Sorry for grammar flaws or typos, I'm using a touchscreen.

No, I've already explained this to you. Condemnations are supposed to cause shame, so causing honour would be the exact opposite effect. Commendations are supposed to cause honour, modesty is not the exact opposite effect. They're not analogous, you can't use them in a logical comparison. The exact opposite effect, shockingly, is shame, and if you wouldn't refrain from commending a nation who actually felt a sense of shame due to the commendation, you would be a cruel little man indeed.

It's not about feelings, it's about the function of the legislation. It's one thing if the target nation is indifferent to the commend/condemn - at least the side effects bring around an overall benefit for the international community at large. But if the legislation does the exact opposite of its function, it's wrong. Additionally, there are other arguments present, like your exaggeration of what TBR does. If you want to condemn someone who's actually as destructive as you make TBR out to be, go condemn Antifa or something.

[Skyrim Diplomacy]

Insta-repeal before the condemnation is even passed? EXTREME.

[Ossitania]

Insta-repeal before the condemnation is even passed? EXTREME.

Huh? The point of an insta-repeal is they get drafted before the voting is over. That way they can be submitted straight away. That's kind of the point of the "insta" bit.

[Skyrim Diplomacy]

I'm quite aware. That's a rather large sign of faith in the author of the original proposal, however.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I'm pretty sure it's Security Council, not "Counsel" or "Counsil".

Hey it was late...

Fixed.

Again, feelings should not be taken into account when it comes to international legislation. If all SC legislation were centered around an emotional stimulant, that is to be provoked in the nominee, then the powers of the SC would be severely limited. You say we should not condemn a region if they see it as an "honor", then, applying the same logic, we should also not commend a region if they will feel a sense of modesty towards their commendation. In addition, we should then also not commend/condemn an entity if the nominee feels a sense of neutrality towards the legislation.

The nominees feelings shouldn't come into account, the duty of the SC is to recognize entities for their accomplishments, whether negative or positive; and our ability to carry this out shouldn't be altered by something so irrelevant such as feelings.

I'm certainly not arguing that the subject's feelings on the matter should be the final word. Call me old school, but I feel that condemnations are about censure, and accordingly there's supposed to be some sort of negativity and shame associated with a condemnation. To the extent that TBR view it as a positive, there's at least some reason to wonder about the appropriateness of the action.

That said, if others feel as strongly as you do about that tiny part of the argument, I may take it out.

Insta-repeal before the condemnation is even passed? EXTREME.

I'm quite aware. That's a rather large sign of faith in the author of the original proposal, however.

It's not like my arguments for repeal are going to be different after (or if, I suppose) this proposal passes. By the time I put pen to paper there was less than a day left in voting and the proposal was enjoying a substantial advantage. At this point, the proposal has 11 hours to go and is enjoying a 15 point advantage. I don't think bringing the draft to the floor at this time was extreme. It certainly wasn't EXTREME.

Best Regards.

[Fischistan]

Support. Let's not give TBR's actions any more legitimacy than they already have.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Support. Let's not give TBR's actions any more legitimacy than they already have.

Indeed. I was hoping to get this to vote right after Skyrim Diplomacy's queued repeal, but I'm not sure if folks would appreciate the quick turn around. Then again, it's not like my arguments are a fine wine that get better with age...

[Skyrim Diplomacy]

Sorry for the interruption in there.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Sorry for the interruption in there.

No problem. Gives me some time to polish this up.

I added a provision about RORMS. Can someone with more SC experience look at that and tell me if it's appropriate.

[Ossitania]

Sorry for the interruption in there.

No problem. Gives me some time to polish this up.

I added a provision about RORMS. Can someone with more SC experience look at that and tell me if it's appropriate.

I don't have any SC experience but I think you should only link to the original region because the point you want to make is that it wasn't destroyed - they reclaimed it and are thriving once more.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

No problem. Gives me some time to polish this up.

I added a provision about RORMS. Can someone with more SC experience look at that and tell me if it's appropriate.

I don't have any SC experience but I think you should only link to the original region because the point you want to make is that it wasn't destroyed - they reclaimed it and are thriving once more.

Good call. Does the argument itself seem good to you? I'm trying to hammer home that the resolution exaggerates the actions of TBR to make them seem more villainous.

[Ossitania]

I don't have any SC experience but I think you should only link to the original region because the point you want to make is that it wasn't destroyed - they reclaimed it and are thriving once more.

Good call. Does the argument itself seem good to you? I'm trying to hammer home that the resolution exaggerates the actions of TBR to make them seem more villainous.

Any argument that calls out the target resolution for being disingenuous sounds good to me. You already referred to it in a vague sense, so specific examples can only strengthen the argument. Arguing for something in abstract or in detail is a good argument - arguing for both is a strong argument.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Good call. Does the argument itself seem good to you? I'm trying to hammer home that the resolution exaggerates the actions of TBR to make them seem more villainous.

Any argument that calls out the target resolution for being disingenuous sounds good to me. You already referred to it in a vague sense, so specific examples can only strengthen the argument. Arguing for something in abstract or in detail is a good argument - arguing for both is a strong argument.

Thanks. I'm pretty content with the present draft. I think I'll stop meddling with it and let it sit for a while. We'll see if anyone else chimes in.

[Jefferson and Paul]

Region of reunited Muslim States and RORMS are two separate regions. The first is the one which was raided and occupied for 32 days, the latter is a separate region founded while the first was being oppressed. RORMS is a fairly active nation and Region of reunited Muslim States is mostly populated by inactive members which did not really care to move over to RORMS.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Region of reunited Muslim States and RORMS are two separate regions. The first is the one which was raided and occupied for 32 days, the latter is a separate region founded while the first was being oppressed. RORMS is a fairly active nation and Region of reunited Muslim States is mostly populated by inactive members which did not really care to move over to RORMS.

My point is that your language exaggerated the acts of TBR to make them sound more menacing. You said that TBR's actions lead to the "undeniable downfall" of various regions, including the Region of reunited Muslim States. A quick peak at that region shows that the community survives. I'm not very plugged in to the raider/defender side of gameplay, and even I know that some raider groups actually cause the "undeniable" downfall of regions via booting all the inhabitants and re-founding.

The RORMS community still exists largely as it did before TBR raided (though granted they are currently spread out as they sort out the liberation). They control their original native region and are working to remove the liberation so they can get things back to normal. Their World Factbook Entry proudly proclaims "Region of reunited muslim states still stands sovereign and is governed by RORMS through the same government members." That's hardly an "undeniable downfall," especially compared to what many raider groups do to regions.

[West Vandengaarde]

Region of reunited Muslim States and RORMS are two separate regions. The first is the one which was raided and occupied for 32 days, the latter is a separate region founded while the first was being oppressed. RORMS is a fairly active nation and Region of reunited Muslim States is mostly populated by inactive members which did not really care to move over to RORMS.

My point is that your language exaggerated the acts of TBR to make them sound more menacing. You said that TBR's actions lead to the "undeniable downfall" of various regions, including the Region of reunited Muslim States. A quick peak at that region shows that the community survives. I'm not very plugged in to the raider/defender side of gameplay, and even I know that some raider groups actually cause the "undeniable" downfall of regions via booting all the inhabitants and re-founding.

The RORMS community still exists largely as it did before TBR raided (though granted they are currently spread out as they sort out the liberation). They control their original native region and are working to remove the liberation so they can get things back to normal. Their World Factbook Entry proudly proclaims "Region of reunited muslim states still stands sovereign and is governed by RORMS through the same government members." That's hardly an "undeniable downfall," especially compared to what many raider groups do to regions.

You're lying through your teeth.
The peak you speak of only occurred because of a flood of defenders. I, too, mistook it for growth in the community, but in reality it was a false population growth and most of the new arrivals departed nearly instantly.
The original region, its vulnerabilities exploited, has died off, a remnant of what once was. RORMS is the new home of the region but it remains to be seen whether it shall ever be as vibrant as their homeland once was.
The Black Riders deserve their condemnation. Leave it as it is, I say as an ally of the RORMS. The Black Riders DID kill their region and made many people leave for other regions.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

My point is that your language exaggerated the acts of TBR to make them sound more menacing. You said that TBR's actions lead to the "undeniable downfall" of various regions, including the Region of reunited Muslim States. A quick peak at that region shows that the community survives. I'm not very plugged in to the raider/defender side of gameplay, and even I know that some raider groups actually cause the "undeniable" downfall of regions via booting all the inhabitants and re-founding.

The RORMS community still exists largely as it did before TBR raided (though granted they are currently spread out as they sort out the liberation). They control their original native region and are working to remove the liberation so they can get things back to normal. Their World Factbook Entry proudly proclaims "Region of reunited muslim states still stands sovereign and is governed by RORMS through the same government members." That's hardly an "undeniable downfall," especially compared to what many raider groups do to regions.

You're lying through your teeth.
The peak you speak of only occurred because of a flood of defenders. I, too, mistook it for growth in the community, but in reality it was a false population growth and most of the new arrivals departed nearly instantly.
The original region, its vulnerabilities exploited, has died off, a remnant of what once was. RORMS is the new home of the region but it remains to be seen whether it shall ever be as vibrant as their homeland once was.
The Black Riders deserve their condemnation. Leave it as it is, I say as an ally of the RORMS. The Black Riders DID kill their region and made many people leave for other regions.

No, I think I'd rather try for the repeal. But thanks for calling me a liar.

I'm certainly not lying when I say that the RORMS community survives. That's a fact. I'm also not lying when I say that they still control their native region. Also a fact. And I'm still not lying when I say that they're trying to remove the liberation so they can more thoroughly reclaim their homeland, that's yet another pesky fact.

I object to being told that TBR led to the "undeniable downfall" of a region that is in fact still in the hands of the natives, who are working to restore it. I get that their lives were disrupted, and I think that's terrible. But this is about the sufficiency of the condemnation for me, not whether TBR deserve to be condemned. Maybe you can't make that distinction, but I can.

Best Regards.

[Skyrim Diplomacy]

Looks quality for a first-timer draft. Very well written.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Looks quality for a first-timer draft. Very well written.

Thank you. Since this was meant to be an insta-repeal, I plan to submit it tomorrow. So last call for comments.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

The repeal has been submitted. I would kindly ask that those Delegates who share these concerns Endorse the proposal so it can reach a vote. Thank you!

[Jefferson and Paul]

You still fail to see the difference between Region of reunited Muslim States and RORMS. Your clever wording in this proposal is intended to fool readers into thinking "Region of reunited Muslim States" and RORMS are the same region. When one is a fairly active region created for the natives of the invaded region and one is the region which was invaded and is comprised of inactive natives whom failed to move over to the new region, RORMS.

edit: grammar

[Drop Your Pants]

I'm not getting that vibe off the proposal personally. Very well written proposal for a first time