NationStates

Posted: **Sun Jun 17, 2012 10:40 pm**

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."

Posted: **Sun Jun 17, 2012 10:52 pm**

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

Posted: **Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:17 pm**

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.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:55 am**

Jefferson and Paul wrote: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.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:02 am**

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

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:18 am**

Skyrim Diplomacy wrote: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.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:34 am**

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

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:41 am**

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

Hey it was late...

Fixed.

Jefferson and Paul wrote: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.

Skyrim Diplomacy wrote:Insta-repeal before the condemnation is even passed? EXTREME.

Skyrim Diplomacy wrote: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.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:19 pm**

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

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:39 pm**

Fischistan wrote: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...

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:35 pm**

Sorry for the interruption in there.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:34 pm**

Skyrim Diplomacy wrote: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.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:44 pm**

Cowardly Pacifists wrote:
Skyrim Diplomacy wrote: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.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:48 pm**

Ossitania wrote:
Cowardly Pacifists wrote: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.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:53 pm**

Cowardly Pacifists wrote:
Ossitania wrote:
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.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:55 pm**

Ossitania wrote:
Cowardly Pacifists wrote: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.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:58 pm**

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.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:32 pm**

Jefferson and Paul wrote: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.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:28 pm**

Cowardly Pacifists wrote:
Jefferson and Paul wrote: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.

Posted: **Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:47 am**

West Vandengaarde wrote:
Cowardly Pacifists wrote: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.

Posted: **Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:00 am**

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

Posted: **Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:29 am**

Skyrim Diplomacy wrote: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.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:15 am**

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!

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:14 pm**

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

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:58 pm**

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

NationStates

[DEFEATED] Repeal "Condemn The Black Riders"

[DEFEATED] Repeal "Condemn The Black Riders"