NationStates

Praeceps wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:
It will fail spectacularly. Seems like a huge waste of time. Don't say you weren't warned.

I'm curious. With what math are you using to arrive to this conclusion? I can see some of the big Delegates voting For. I also can see some voting Against. However, I can't think of a scenario to be so confident as to state "it will fail spectacularly".

Where are you getting this?

Blood Wine wrote:

Praeceps wrote:I'm curious. With what math are you using to arrive to this conclusion? I can see some of the big Delegates voting For. I also can see some voting Against. However, I can't think of a scenario to be so confident as to state "it will fail spectacularly".

Where are you getting this?

Presumably from his knowledge of the voting habits & preferences of superdelegate and their associated regions.

You may still offer your thoughts on this proposal before the train leaves the station at about 6pm BST on Monday.

Tinhampton wrote:You may still offer your thoughts on this proposal before the train leaves the station at about 6pm BST on Monday.

As I've said, you have thirty-six hours left to suggest improvements before I submit this one.

"The Black Hawks deserve those two condemnations, I shall be voting against whenever this reaches vote."

And with all that said and done, we are now Proposal-A-Go-Go.

SC#52 is of historical importance. As the co-author of SC#217, I have no interest in seeing SC#52 repealed, and will be voting against should it come to vote.

Cormactopia Prime wrote:SC#52 is of historical importance. As the co-author of SC#217, I have no interest in seeing SC#52 repealed, and will be voting against should it come to vote.

I would have to agree. The Hawks have definitely earned both of their badges, and haven't done anything to warrant losing them.

Opposed.

Nope. The Hawks are honourable raiders and people who earned both of those badges. Opposed.

Draft 3b - a slimmed-down version of the proposal that failed to make quorum about two minutes ago - will be posted on October 17th.

AS OF 0459 BST ON FRIDAY: Approvals: 59 out of 64 needed (Kuriko, Artsotska, Ransium, Johanneslanden, Silberfluss, Leranditale, Candensia, Kyorgia, Hulldom, Skundi, Aynia Moreaux, United Massachusetts, Ashaie, El Fiji Grande, Valastane, Scardinius, Dragons of Power, New Order Philippines, Aqun-Athlok, Honk Donk, Peoples Republic of California, Ex Patrian SSR, Austronta, Mezi Mori, Greater Ottonna, Omaha Utopia, Smiley Bob, The Wellywood Colony of the Balckowain, Territories of Illinois, Rosyanna, Kvasheim, Zombiedolphins, Caezar, The Greater Low Countries, Refuge Isle, Integralists Of Brazil, Jocospor, Jalous, Tic Cove, Andromedian, The Tomerlands, Royal Kingdom of Ni, Corgislakia, Greater Serbian Provinces, Mikeswill, New Legland, Corrocium, SFR Philippines, Ramenkyo, Sunam, The Flyin, United Island States of Southeast Asia, Vrolondia, 7LM Powerhouse, Woods Is Back, Kamchakta, Bietzopolis, Victoria and Cascadia, Toopaka)

Seconds ago: The Security Council proposal "Repeal "Condemn The Black Hawks"" [Tinhampton] failed to achieve quorum.

Whew, that was a close one. Only five approvals to go in the last half hour. I thought my counter-campaign might actually fail there for a minute.

Congratulations to the campaigner(s) on a photo finish. Very competitive and fun to watch. See you again in October.

Cormactopia Prime wrote:

Seconds ago: The Security Council proposal "Repeal "Condemn The Black Hawks"" [Tinhampton] failed to achieve quorum.

Whew, that was a close one. Only five approvals to go in the last half hour. I thought my counter-campaign might actually fail there for a minute.

Congratulations to the campaigner(s) on a photo finish. Very competitive and fun to watch. See you again in October.

For the record, I was the sole canvasser (as New Islet) for the proposition, using the same API telegramming tools that have helped bring seven of my proposals to the floor, and was completely oblivious to the Cormac Counter.

Will that be eight come Halloween time or will my husband finally allow me to buy stamps? Who knows, long may the sparring last... wait, no

It is likely that someone was running a counter-counter campaign, given that some delegates re-approved after Cormac's counter-campaign got them to un-approve.

Unless that was also you

Lord Dominator wrote:It is likely that someone was running a counter-counter campaign, given that some delegates re-approved after Cormac's counter-campaign got them to un-approve.

Unless that was also you

Wait, I was fighting fire with fire in the first place? I was under the impression that the big barrel of... stuff I was using at the time was clearly labelled "MIRACLE PROPOSAL FERTILISER"

Tinhampton wrote:I... was completely oblivious to the Cormac Counter

Cormactopia Prime wrote:SC#52 is of historical importance. As the co-author of SC#217, I have no interest in seeing SC#52 repealed, and will be voting against should it come to vote.

This argument has been advanced before in other resolutions. Other people replied to that line of argumentation there so I will just quote one of those people instead:

This is supposed to be international law, not art. You don't preserve bad laws for historical purposes; you replace them with better laws. This is yet another example of people socializing and personalizing this game to such a degree that we're losing a sense of what it's really supposed to be.

For those disinclined to click the link, the person I am quoting is Cormac. The last sentence of your quote is not relevant for this particular scenario, but the first two sentences are.

If you have changed your opinion since December 2018, I will not hold it against you—opinions do change over time—although it is not that long ago. The resolution proposed claims there are multiple erroneous statements in TBH's first condemnation. As I have not seen anyone refuting them, I am led to believe these assertions on the factual inaccuracies are correct. I think a resolution with severe errors can be classified as "bad".

I haven't seen Tinhampton advance the opinion that TBH is undeserving of two condemnations, that may very well be their stance, yet, they have not argued from what I have seen that TBH is underserving of two condemnations. Their argument is that it is a bad resolution.

And you don't preserve bad laws for historical purposes; you replace them with better laws.

Lord Dominator wrote:It is likely that someone was running a counter-counter campaign, given that some delegates re-approved after Cormac's counter-campaign got them to un-approve.

Unless that was also you

Praeceps wrote:The resolution proposed claims there are multiple erroneous statements in TBH's first condemnation. As I have not seen anyone refuting them, I am led to believe these assertions on the factual inaccuracies are correct. I think a resolution with severe errors can be classified as "bad".

I admittedly haven't been following this that closely, but I haven't seen Tinhampton prove any of the claims made in SC#52 were erroneous. As far as I know, The Black Hawks maintain the claims made by SC#52 weren't erroneous. I'm unsure why we should accept Tinhampton's claims that SC#52 is erroneous at face value. There doesn't seem to be much proof anymore either way, and none of us were there.

The bottom line for me is I don't think a strong enough case has been made against the resolution in question to justify repealing it. I do believe it's acceptable to repeal bad historical resolutions, but I'm not convinced this one is bad enough to warrant repeal. That then leaves me questioning the motives for repeal, and I can't help but think for a lot of folks the motive is disliking TBH and wanting to remove one of their badges. I'm not interested in that. They earned these badges and I don't think a good enough case has been made for repealing one of them.

Incidentally, the Cormacquote mentions a replacement, which this does not have. Given the timeframe that would be to be covered, I'm not a 100% we could find enough stuff prior to the 1st (what, 2010, 2011?) to write a suitable replacement for this one.

I can run through claims made by the existing Condemnation & this proposed repeal later as someone who does have decent experience as a Hawk & knowledge thereof if it is wished.

Lord Dominator wrote:Incidentally, the Cormacquote mentions a replacement, which this does not have. Given the timeframe that would be to be covered, I'm not a 100% we could find enough stuff prior to the 1st (what, 2010, 2011?) to write a suitable replacement for this one.

I can run through claims made by the existing Condemnation & this proposed repeal later as someone who does have decent experience as a Hawk & knowledge thereof if it is wished.

OR... We could just leave things as is, and Tinhampton can do something else with her time.

Wayneactia wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:Incidentally, the Cormacquote mentions a replacement, which this does not have. Given the timeframe that would be to be covered, I'm not a 100% we could find enough stuff prior to the 1st (what, 2010, 2011?) to write a suitable replacement for this one.

I can run through claims made by the existing Condemnation & this proposed repeal later as someone who does have decent experience as a Hawk & knowledge thereof if it is wished.

OR... We could just leave things as is, and Tinhampton can do something else with her time.

They will likely not choose to drop this unless it fails at vote.

Lord Dominator wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:
OR... We could just leave things as is, and Tinhampton can do something else with her time.

They will likely not choose to drop this unless it fails at vote.

Pretty sure you are correct. Was just hoping Tinhampton would exercise some good judgment and drop this, but alas.

Cormactopia Prime wrote:

Praeceps wrote:The resolution proposed claims there are multiple erroneous statements in TBH's first condemnation. As I have not seen anyone refuting them, I am led to believe these assertions on the factual inaccuracies are correct. I think a resolution with severe errors can be classified as "bad".

I admittedly haven't been following this that closely, but I haven't seen Tinhampton prove any of the claims made in SC#52 were erroneous. As far as I know, The Black Hawks maintain the claims made by SC#52 weren't erroneous. I'm unsure why we should accept Tinhampton's claims that SC#52 is erroneous at face value. There doesn't seem to be much proof anymore either way, and none of us were there.

The bottom line for me is I don't think a strong enough case has been made against the resolution in question to justify repealing it. I do believe it's acceptable to repeal bad historical resolutions, but I'm not convinced this one is bad enough to warrant repeal. That then leaves me questioning the motives for repeal, and I can't help but think for a lot of folks the motive is disliking TBH and wanting to remove one of their badges. I'm not interested in that. They earned these badges and I don't think a good enough case has been made for repealing one of them.

I was hoping Tinhampton would respond with evidence to back all of their claims up. They have offered evidence for some in the original post.

There's been a plethora of TBHers either current or former in this thread, were it be that Tinhampton's claims that SC#52's claims are erroneous is erroneous, I would have thought that someone would have pointed that out. Especially given their opposition to the resolution.

And while we are on the topic of a lack of evidence—the original resolution did not present evidence for all the statements presented there.

Some things are not worth the time to reply to every fourth week* when they come up again. Further, is it standard practice even today to “source” things beyond a certain degree of detail in the resolution text itself?

*exaggeration, but we’ve had about 3 per year for the past three years, and this very thread is almost three years old itself, but keeps coming back to life.

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Some things are not worth the time to reply to every fourth week* when they come up again. Further, is it standard practice even today to “source” things beyond a certain degree of detail in the resolution text itself?

*exaggeration, but we’ve had about 3 per year for the past three years, and this very thread is almost three years old itself, but keeps coming back to life.

It’s been more than a year and a half since the last one, and perhaps this is the best one there is.

Feel free to vote against if you’re fatigued.

Tinhampton wrote:Draft 3b - a slimmed-down version of the proposal that failed to make quorum about two minutes ago - will be posted on October 17th.

I never told you what time I'd be putting it up for public comment - namely, also about two minutes ago. No, I don't mean two months ago

Still think this is gonna pass?