[DEFEATED] Repeal Condemn the Black Riders

[Sedgistan]

My goal for this particular draft is to repeal a resolution that I, and several others, think isn't a particularly well written one. SC#91 exaggerates what The Black Riders have done. It paints them as a force which destroys the culture of any region they raid. Yes, they are a menace, but not one which engages in the complete destruction of any and all regions they raid. This draft, and my replacement condemnation, seek to accurately portray what The Black Riders are. Not my opinion of them. The replacement condemnation that I've been talking about is here: viewtopic.php?p=16224194#p16224194

The Security Council,

Recognizing the laudable intentions of SC#91, but due to poor draftsmanship, falls short of a condemnation expected for a region like The Black Riders,

Observing that the choice of language found throughout this condemnation sought to facilitate the image that The Black Riders were a major threat to international security and prosperity, when, at the time SC#91 was written, they were a mere nuisance, sacking less than 200 regions,

Noting that Operation Marathon, an operation where the Black Riders took control of 26 regions, was a mildly impressive record for that region, but has since been surpassed multiple times and by multiple commanders,

Further Noting that, after this condemnation was written, the Black Riders had raided over 3000 regions, demonstrating that this condemnation has done little to stave the Black Riders off their rapacious sacking,

Determined to field a resolution which accurately demonstrates the menace and threat to international security the Black Riders have since become,

Hereby repeals SC#91, “Condemn The Black Riders”.

The Security Council,

Recognizing the laudable intentions of SC#91, but due to poor draftsmanship, falls short of a condemnation expected for a region like The Black Riders,

Disturbed by the blatant manipulations found in SC#91, including references to “cultural genocide”, and aware that the systematic destruction of a culture is something which no military organization, no matter how prolific, could succeed in,

Completely baffled by the third clause of SC#91, which accuses The Black Riders of encouraging “anti-WA establishments and attitudes”,

Determined to field a resolution which accurately demonstrates the menace the Black Riders have since become,

Hereby repeals SC#91, “Condemn The Black Riders”.

The Security Council,

Recognizing the laudable intentions of SC#91, but due to poor draftsmanship, falls short of a condemnation expected for a region like The Black Riders, notably,

• The numerous typographical errors in use of punctuation, excessively long sentences, lack of pronoun agreement, and more,

• The use of the word “recent” in the present tense to describe raiding actions that are now in the past,

Regretting the use of words in SC#91 that yield unintentional and nonsensical meaning, including,

• “anti-WA establishments and attitudes”,

• “Angered by The Black Riders forced removal of those nations which are natives to the regions they conquer”,

• “32 day oppressive and horrific seize that followed”,

• “leading the regions to an undeniable downfall”,

Disturbed by the blatant manipulations found in SC#91, including references to “cultural genocide”, and aware that the systematic destruction of a culture is something in which no military organization, no matter how prolific, could succeed,

Determined to field a resolution that accurately demonstrates the menace The Black Riders have since become,

Hereby repeals SC#91, “Condemn The Black Riders”.
Co-Authored by The Black Hat Guy.

Alright, I incorporated The Black Hat Guy's suggestions and edits, and added a few of my own.

[Ramaeus]

If no one has anything to add to this draft, then I'll be submitting it tomorrow.

[Charax]

Seems aite.

[The Black Hat Guy]

What they have done since the resolution was passed is rather irrelevant. They can be condemned again, if need be.

And keep in mind that the vast majority of those 4000 regions to which you refer are simply tag raids. Tag raiding is not nearly as costly to a regional community as occupation - in fact, it's not really costly at all.

They were a threat then, and they're still a threat now. Condemn them a second time, if you'd like, but this resolution is still valid. Opposed.

[Ramaeus]

You can't condemn someone for actions that they've already been condemned for. And they've already been condemned for raiding, so that door is firmly closed unless this repeal goes through.

SC#91 blatantly exaggerates what TBR did, with mentions of cultural genocide. Cultural genocide. That is being dramatic and overstating what TBR has done. Yes, they're a menace deserving of a condemnation, but the type of raiding they proliferate isn't one that engages in the systematic destruction of an entire culture. That's just silly.

[The Black Hat Guy]

You can't condemn someone for actions that they've already been condemned for. And they've already been condemned for raiding, so that door is firmly closed unless this repeal goes through.

You can't condemn them for the same acts of raiding, i.e., you can't condemn them for raids that they did before the first resolution was passed. Perhaps a mod clarification/ruling wouldn't be out of order, but I see no issue with condemning them for acts of raiding that they've done since.

SC#91 blatantly exaggerates what TBR did, with mentions of cultural genocide. Cultural genocide. That is being dramatic and overstating what TBR has done. Yes, they're a menace deserving of a condemnation, but the type of raiding they proliferate isn't one that engages in the systematic destruction of an entire culture. That's just silly.

Now that is an argument that I'm more likely to support. Why didn't you include that in your draft repeal?

[Sedgistan]

If the original condemns TBR "for tag-raiding"* then a second condemnation couldn't condemn simply "for tag-raiding" again - it would have to specify that it's continued tag raiding since the previous one.

*Haven't checked, but I think it says something like that.

[Firstaria]

I don't find a reason to repeal this. You confirm that all that is written in the Condemn is right, so pretty much you kill your own argument.

Suggestion: Do a new updated Condemnation, get that approved, then repeal this on the basis of a "more accurate one". It's a legal system used in many countries, perfectly valid.

[Ramaeus]

Now that is an argument that I'm more likely to support. Why didn't you include that in your draft repeal?

Brain fart.
A lot of good ideas here. I'll be revising as soon as I'm able.

[Ramaeus]

New draft up. I've really gone overboard on the editing here. O_O

[The Black Hat Guy]

I like this draft a lot better. I definitely agree that the current condemnation of TBR, while deserved, is quite an awful piece of legislation.

There are a few things that I think it would be good to add though. A repeal of Condemn "The Black Riders" is going to be extremely hard to pass even in the best of circumstances, so any resolution that attempts it will need to look and be professional. That said, I think it would be good to be more specific about why the target resolution suffers from "poor draftmanship". Perhaps adding a few subclauses?

Recognizing the laudable intentions of SC#91, falls short of a condemnation expected for a region like The Black Riders due to poor draftsmanship, notably,

• The numerous typographical errors in use of punctuation, excessively long sentences, lack of pronoun agreement, and more,
• The use "recently" and the present tense to describe raiding actions that are now in the past,

Then another clause that definitely needs mentioning:

Regretting the use of words in the target resolution that yield unintended and nonsensical meaning, e.g., "32 day oppressive and horrific seize that followed"

(Another example of this is the "undeniable downfall")

And another thing regarding professionalism. While there is no established standard, generally something is done to emphasize the first word of each clause. Bolding it or capitalizing the entire word are used quite frequently, and I believe that resolutions look more professional when that is done. Given how hard you're going to have to work and campaign to get this passed (TBR is generally hated by many, and at face value a repeal of their condemnation is quite unappealing to most nations), I think it should look as professional as possible.

Another note - don't try to pass this until you're ready to pass the replacement as well. You'll get a lot more support if you can firmly say that you have a resolution ready to replace this one as soon as the it is repealed.

EDIT:

Disturbed by the blatant manipulations found in SC#91, including references to “cultural genocide”, and aware that the systematic destruction of a culture is something in which no military organization, no matter how prolific, could succeed in,

Determined to field a resolution which accurately demonstrates the menace theThe Black Riders have since become,

Because as long as I'm complaining about typos in the target resolution, let's make darn sure that we're not ending a sentence with preposition or forgetting to capitalize a proper noun here.

Also, I'm not quite certain of this, but shouldn't "...field a resolution which accurately demonstrates..." be "...field a resolution that accurately demonstrates...". I'm a little fuzzy on that one - it seems intuitively off to me, but I can't place a finger on why. If a grammar nazi could weigh in, that'd be great.

[Ramaeus]

I like this draft a lot better. I definitely agree that the current condemnation of TBR, while deserved, is quite an awful piece of legislation.

Thanks for the feedback, I'll get to work on this as soon as I'm able.
Edit: I've added the suggestions, edits, and added a few of my own.

[The Black Hat Guy]

Great changes, this is shaping up to be an excellent resolution.

A few changes:

“anti-WA establishments and attitudes”

While I certainly agree that this is nonsensical - there's no reason to suggest that TBR opposed the WA - I don't think it was unintentional. It seems to me that the author said very much what he intended to say, but was merely wrong. Thus, I'd say that this point should be in a separate clause.

This is a bit of a stylistic point though, and I think that it does work as a subclause, so I wouldn't be opposed to keeping it as is.

“Angered by The Black Riders forced removal of those nations which are natives to the regions they conquer”

I'm afraid I don't understand this one. It's a bit redundant, yes, it's missing some apostrophes, and it uses incorrect pronouns, but I don't see any real incorrect word use that yields a different meaning that what was intended, just numerous grammatical errors.

[Ramaeus]

While I certainly agree that this is nonsensical - there's no reason to suggest that TBR opposed the WA - I don't think it was unintentional. It seems to me that the author said very much what he intended to say, but was merely wrong. Thus, I'd say that this point should be in a separate clause.

This is a bit of a stylistic point though, and I think that it does work as a subclause, so I wouldn't be opposed to keeping it as is.

Alright, I'll leave it as is, unless someone objects to it.

I'm afraid I don't understand this one. It's a bit redundant, yes, it's missing some apostrophes, and it uses incorrect pronouns, but I don't see any real incorrect word use that yields a different meaning that what was intended, just numerous grammatical errors.

My point there is that it sounds like someone forced TBR to eject those nations, but if it doesn't make sense, I'll remove it.

[The Black Hat Guy]

My point there is that it sounds like someone forced TBR to eject those nations, but if it doesn't make sense, I'll remove it.

Alright, that makes sense.

[Zarden (Ancient)]

I feel that it is good to go now.

[Ramaeus]

I feel that it is good to go now.

Yeah, it is. I'm going to be waiting another day or two, so people have a chance to comment on my replacement draft.

[Abacathea]

First vote for!

Best of luck!

[SyrupLand]

Voted for, but I think this raises the need for a system to amend resolutions of the World Assembly. Due to the current system, the Black Riders might be free of condemnation for more than a month.

[Abacathea]

Voted for, but I think this raises the need for a system to amend resolutions of the World Assembly. Due to the current system, the Black Riders might be free of condemnation for more than a month.

Never gonna happen lol

[The Black Hat Guy]

Attempted a votestack, but I've been outgunned by Venico, Frattastan, and St James Islands.

I'll TG some of them and see what their oppositions are.

Also, Rameus, in what? It's spelled "In Queue", though now it should be "AT VOTE"

[Frattastan II]

I'll TG some of them and see what their oppositions are.

I'm actually in favour of the proposal, but the RR forum poll is currently against.

[Dark Fire]

Well, I think the black riders do not want a repeal.Venico voted against the repeal...

[Frattastan II]

Well, I think the black riders do not want a repeal.Venico voted against the repeal...

He changed his vote to For, presumably in support of a replacement too (Cormac wrote one).

[Abacathea]

Well, I think the black riders do not want a repeal.Venico voted against the repeal...

Don't confuse the two. I don't believe Venico's a rider.