[DEFEATED] Repeal Condemn the Black Riders

[Ramaeus]

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"

Whoops, my mistake.

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

Disappointing, but not surprising.

Wow, this is quite close so far.

[Rotwood]

I am a bit in two minds about this. If a better replacement comes up it might be okay, but it just seems this repeal is coming off as trivial. Yes, it could have been better written, but beyond that I don't see the need for it to be struck out

[Frattastan II]

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

Disappointing, but not surprising.

Aww. Why not surprising?

[Ramaeus]

Aww. Why not surprising?

Not too many nations like TBR. >_>

[People Who Say Ni]

Many people will vote against it, not realising the intent behind it is to update the condemnation. It's unfortunate; if it doesn't pass, you should certainly try again.

[Freedoniaia]

The only reason I am for this is because I know that as soon as this would come down there would be a replacement up. I don't like TBR, but this condemning that they gave was not truly worded and good enough for a region like TBR.

[Alpha Empire]

Repealing for this reason is incredibly trivial. You want to repeal because you think you can do a better job. I'm not saying you can't (we can write an essay on that menace) but we are dealing with condemnations here, not WA regulations. They don't affect a nations day to day activity. Whatever the reason the result is the same. A condemnation is a condemnation whether because they defy international law or go on militaristic rampages.

What happens then when the black riders commit new atrocities? We repeal that new resolution and go through all this again? They would love to see us run around and constantly repeal, re-repeal, draft, and condemn them over and over again in order to get an "accurate" resolution. This is completely unnecessary and diverts the council's attention away from other issues.

The original is fine. You can't condemn them anymore then we have. We vote AGAINST.

ooc: amend button, where art thou?

[People Who Say Ni]

Repealing for this reason is incredibly trivial. You want to repeal because you think you can do a better job. I'm not saying you can't (we can write an essay on that menace) but we are dealing with condemnations here, not WA regulations. They don't affect a nations day to day activity. Whatever the reason the result is the same. A condemnation is a condemnation whether because they defy international law or go on militaristic rampages.

What happens then when the black riders commit new atrocities? We repeal that new resolution and go through all this again? They would love to see us run around and constantly repeal, re-repeal, draft, and condemn them over and over again in order to get an "accurate" resolution. This is completely unnecessary and diverts the council's attention away from other issues.

The original is fine. You can't condemn them anymore then we have. We vote AGAINST.

ooc: amend button, where art thou?

The current resolution does not accurately describe the "menace the Black Riders have become". The repeal is less about updating the condemnation, but bettering it. The amendments are of great political relevance and will help to increase security by showing an accurate portrayal of TBRs' travesty.

[Sternberg]

While we are initially hesitant to vote for a repeal on the grounds of pure semantics, the Constitutional Monarchy of Sternberg votes AYE for this repeal on the understanding that the replacement draft for this Condemnation will be put into place immediately after the vote is resolved and that no further condemnation of this region will be necessary (or risk bogging the Assembly down).

We also express our strongest anger towards TBR for their continual disruption and raiding activities to date, we firmly believe that "for the lulz" (to use crude vernacular) does NOT justify such activities and we whole-heartedly support any future action taken by this Assembly towards the aforementioned group.

Lord H.R. Melverry
Consul
Sternberg Legislative Assembly

[A War Lord]

The Warlord fully supports the noble actions of the Black Riders in protecting national sovereignty. We support this repeal and will vote against any effort to recondemn a noble group.

[People Who Say Ni]

The Warlord fully supports the noble actions of the Black Riders in protecting national sovereignty. We support this repeal and will vote against any effort to recondemn a noble group.

TBR do the exact opposite of protecting "national sovereignty".

[A War Lord]

The Warlord fully supports the noble actions of the Black Riders in protecting national sovereignty. We support this repeal and will vote against any effort to recondemn a noble group.

TBR do the exact opposite of protecting "national sovereignty".

That is debatable. They certainly don't use the WA to attack other nations. We stand by them.

[The Black Hat Guy]

TBR do the exact opposite of protecting "national sovereignty".

That is debatable. They certainly don't use the WA to attack other nations. We stand by them.

No, they use the WA to attack other regions... Which is the home of nations that they build communities in.

[Linn Westcott]

The Warlord fully supports the noble actions of the Black Riders in protecting national sovereignty. We support this repeal and will vote against any effort to recondemn a noble group.

There is exactly zero nobility in The Black Riders, as any perusal of their news thread will reveal to all except the stupid and the equally un-nobile supporters of TBR. My opinion of TBR is quite unprintable. They use the WA, not for any meaningful purpose, but to engage in vandalism and bullying, and they brag about this. Indeed, it is well past time to reconsider the entire raider/defender dynamic. Things have already gotten out of hand.

I have read the replacement resolution and favor it, and therefore favor the repeal of the current condemnation so that a stronger condemnation can be put in place.

David Grivno, Delegate to the World Assembly for the Railroad Republic of Linn Westcott

[Averettistan]

I'd just like to add that I really don't care about little grammatical mistakes in condemnations or commendations. It seems like 90% of WA and SC time is spent on perfecting resolutions and random trivial garbage. Sure you could make a novel about what dicks TBR are. Do I think we need to repeal this? No, it's fine.

[People Who Say Ni]

I'd just like to add that I really don't care about little grammatical mistakes in condemnations or commendations. It seems like 90% of WA and SC time is spent on perfecting resolutions and random trivial garbage. Sure you could make a novel about what dicks TBR are. Do I think we need to repeal this? No, it's fine.

But what do condemnations do, then, other than sit nicely as a warning (or trophy to some of those in TBR), if it doesn't accurately describe the atrocities committed by the group?

[Intelligent States]

This appears to be pretty sound. I don't have much in the way of criticism. Though from the looks of it, most people are against this. This may have already been mentioned, but it would be a great idea to make it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, that this resolution is simply being proposed to make room for improved legislation. When looking at the resolution, it' is somewhat difficult to realize that the intent here is to clean up previously passed legislation. I think that this is great. I hope that we can change other countries minds on this.

[The Black Hat Guy]

Alright, this looks like it's going to fail on the first run, which is disappointing, but not all that surprising. Let's redraft, gather more support, and see what we can do.

First of all, the first opening clause still sounds awkward to me:

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,

Which is probably my fault, since I'm the one that turned it into a list. But perhaps the most important change is this: People, by what I've heard on this thread, the other thread, and word of mouth, are voting against this because (not unexpectedly) they believe that this is actually an attempt to leave TBR without a condemnation. So directly after the first clause, let's be a bit redundant (for good reason) and say:

Desiring that a future condemnation of The Black Riders be befitting of the Security Council, but;

It sounds a bit awkward, calling for a future condemnation without expressing the reasons for the repeal of this one, but it's vitally important that those ambassadors that are simply skimming or skipping the resolution (of which there are many) know that we do intend to replace the resolution. Coupling that with the redraft of the first clause, we get this:

Recognizing the laudable intentions of SC#91 to condemn a region that has committed grievous crimes across the world;

Desiring that a future condemnation of The Black Riders be befitting of the Security Council, but;

Saddened that due to poor draftsmanship, the resolution falls short of a condemnation expected for a region like The Black Riders by reason of

Because rather than being an unfortunate consequence of wording, this is a very intentional use of wording that portrays a false reality. That, in my humble opinion, merits a separate clause.

And to keep the pattern, let's bold:

“leading the regions to an undeniable downfall”,

Furthermore, I think that this "“anti-WA establishments and attitudes”," deserves its own clause. Simply put, the words aren't unintentional: they're quite intentional, and they're blatant lies. TBR as a whole has never expressed an opposition to the WA, and (obviously) uses the WA to do what it does. So let's split that off into a clause like this:

Further Disturbed that SC #91 denounces The Black Riders for their alleged “anti-WA establishments and attitudes”, when in reality The Black Riders have never expressed opposition to the WA, and indeed use the WA to commit their atrocities;

[Someone Special 12]

Given people's concerns and the vote count, it looks like this was done backwards.

You need to condemn them twice, then get rid of the bad one.

Two badges for the ebil ones - it's the only way.

[The Black Hat Guy]

Given people's concerns and the vote count, it looks like this was done backwards.

You need to condemn them twice, then get rid of the bad one.

Two badges for the ebil ones - it's the only way.

I think that if we can get the supporting delegates to come in a little earlier, and the opposed delegates to come in a little later (most of the major delegates that voted against did so because they were compelled to do so by their regional votes), then this has a good chance of passing.

[Linn Westcott]

I think that if we can get the supporting delegates to come in a little earlier, and the opposed delegates to come in a little later (most of the major delegates that voted against did so because they were compelled to do so by their regional votes), then this has a good chance of passing.

My regional delegate (The East Pacific) posted on our board to drum up support. That's how I got involved with this issue. Because he explained the purpose of the repeal, I had no problem voting in favor, whereas otherwise I might have voted against. Other WA members in TEP also picked up on his post. That's what we need from other major delegates. I'm still learning how to do things. but perhaps some telegrams might help?

[Novus Niciae]

Considering that they have shown no signs of repentance, as demonstrated by their invasion of Greater DienstadI can think of no reason for this to be repealed.

[Abacathea]

Considering that they have shown no signs of repentance, as demonstrated by their invasion of Greater DienstadI can think of no reason for this to be repealed.

Except for a better one to replace it?

[Charax]

Considering that they have shown no signs of repentance, as demonstrated by their invasion of Greater DienstadI can think of no reason for this to be repealed.

Except for a better one to replace it?

>Implying he's read the proposal or debate prior to it being submitted.

[Firstaria]

I think people are stupid at this point.

As I said before, this is NOT gonna pass: too many people see this as a repeal of something they think it should exist, and those who see the repeal for what it is (A rewrite) are scared that the rewrite will fail, so they prefer to stay with the low quality resolution.

Fortunately, in the SC you can get condemned twice: I suggest you first condemn them again, THEN propose the repeal. Only then I believe you will gain the consensus required to perform the update.