The Laurentian Federation wrote:Y a second condemnation?
Because they've done more "bad stuff" since the last one, and thus need to be more recognized.
Myopic wrote:Ndaku wrote:I'm against this proposal because condemnations usually encourage raider organizations to continue their work and multiply their followers. Basically, condemnations are indirect advertisements for these orgs.
I tend to agree with this, and the proposal itself makes reference to the fact that The Black Hawks revel in their notoriety and status as being the premier raider organization. I suggest that a 2nd unprecedented condemnation would merely reinforce to the other raider nations that in their own mentality "The Black Hawks are bad ass".
Before I consider supporting this proposal I would like to see a structured argument for why condemnations do any good for NationStates and the WA membership beyond making some feel good about themselves. If you can show any evidence that they actually do anything to deter raiding or to make regions more responsible for their own defense, then I am quite prepared to be convinced.
But so far I have seen zero evidence that condemnations are worth the pixels they are composed of.
As far as I know, Condemnations have been mostly used as Commendations for people who do "bad stuff" or roleplay as people doing "bad stuff"
It seems that Plemboria has shifted their vote to FOR, and Tsunamy has voted FOR as well. Passage seems fairly likely to me.