NationStates

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.

How can you blame an entire and nation and do nothing about the innocent that does no harm in black hawk nation?...im also empire of zhibkova tocondemn my free country of zhibkova is to claim war against me and Odinorgon brother to zhibkova...that nation is a strongnation and you cantaccept that everyday your going to condemn a nation that you are threatened by? Wow aha sad accept it stop condemning what you can't accept and move on from

I will NOT be supporting this resolution. If this passes, it will only give The Black Hawks another reason to continue their unjust actions. If the governing body of NS condemns them, any member could become a target. It could encourage another Operation Blackout, put possibly on a much larger scale. Denouncing them must be left up to an individual country, and their own risk.

- Prime Minister Peter M. Grund

Pharexia wrote:I will NOT be supporting this resolution. If this passes, it will only give The Black Hawks another reason to continue their unjust actions. If the governing body of NS condemns them, any member could become a target. It could encourage another Operation Blackout, put possibly on a much larger scale. Denouncing them must be left up to an individual country, and their own risk.

- Prime Minister Peter M. Grund

We'll do what we do regardless of whatever the hell the SC says. Can warn others, but you can't stop us

The Stalker wrote: -snip-

Words like 'appreciating', 'trumpeting', and 'commemorating' don't really suggest condemnation. At this point, 'raiders are ebil' just might pass.

And Plemboria has switched their vote yet again to AGAINST.
Pretty sure that it doesn't matter anymore, given the growing FOR vote from the general populace.

Okay, how many times does Plembobria have to change his mind before he makes his vote? Pick a side, either side, and preferably my side

Libertarain Republicans wrote:Okay, how many times does Plembobria have to change his mind before he makes his vote? Pick a side, either side, and preferably my side

Drama in TNP, someone was trying to say certain people couldn't validly vote (which was a lie), so it threw off the count.

Remember, condemnation is the new commendation for raiders. This is nothing but encouragement.

Lemaine wrote:Remember, condemnation is the new commendation for raiders. This is nothing but encouragement.

So?

Libertarain Republicans wrote:Okay, how many times does Plembobria have to change his mind before he makes his vote? Pick a side, either side, and preferably my side

He doesn't make up his mind. The Delegate in TNP, by convention, votes along with how the region votes – defined in a poll held on the TNP forums.

I will be voting to confirm.

Ok, 1st things 1st!

I am a native of Equestria and I can tell you that they did NOT destroy the place. It was a tag raid, if you think being occupied for about 4 days is destroying a region than you have something wrong going on in your head. However, I do have to point out that they have, (in other regions,) never gave back the natives turf.

Either way, I can assure you that Equestria was not, "Personally Attack" or "The Community was destroyed."

I will be voting against this one, but I do see it has some good points.

This region already has a condemnation on the books. Giving them another one simply gives them more attention. Opposed.

Lord Dominator wrote:Because they've done more "bad stuff" since the last one, and thus need to be more recognized.

SIGH.

'Bad Stuff' - Enough of an excuse for the defender community to condemn the Black Hawks. AGAIN. No actual evidence, and no reason. Nobody cares what the Black Hawks have done, the opposition against the Black Hawks just keep playing the victim card until NationStates has no other choice but to actually listen to the crap that spews from their mouths.

The Black Hawks have enough recognition, they're famous enough. They don't need condemning, seriously, have you ever thought about leaving a region and a group of people alone? Your Communist-backed 'Internationalism' ideals are what's killing your reputation. Invading is a core concept of NationStates, and the pure fact that the Black Hawks did that and took over a few old regions isn't an excuse for you people to start crying and beg for a Condemnation.

Honestly, getting the Black Hawks recognized is exactly what they want. You're giving them free advertising and a huge potential for new recruits for their operations, and just like the last Condemnation, it won't probably affect them.

Finally, do you actually think another Condemnation is going to do anything? They've already been condemned once, and it apparently didn't seem to do anything lasting, so what is another condemnation going to do? Anything? Wait for a 3rd Condemnation? I like this side of the community, that the first instant some 'bad stuff' occurs you don't THINK and instantly try for a condemnation, and bring all of the powerful liberal nations to your side. Opposed.

TL:DR - Read It.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:He doesn't make up his mind. The Delegate in TNP, by convention, votes along with how the region votes – defined in a poll held on the TNP forums.

Bull. That's a complete lie. The Delegates for The Pacifics pick and choose which proposals they actually listen to their region and which ones they just personally decide. It's an entirely corrupt system.

Why does everyone automatically assume condemnations will do something? No condemnation has ever changed a region. Just give them the condemnation already, they deserve it.

Branburg wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:Because they've done more "bad stuff" since the last one, and thus need to be more recognized.

SIGH.

'Bad Stuff' - Enough of an excuse for the defender community to condemn the Black Hawks. AGAIN. No actual evidence, and no reason. Nobody cares what the Black Hawks have done, the opposition against the Black Hawks just keep playing the victim card until NationStates has no other choice but to actually listen to the crap that spews from their mouths.

The Black Hawks have enough recognition, they're famous enough. They don't need condemning, seriously, have you ever thought about leaving a region and a group of people alone? Your Communist-backed 'Internationalism' ideals are what's killing your reputation. Invading is a core concept of NationStates, and the pure fact that the Black Hawks did that and took over a few old regions isn't an excuse for you people to start crying and beg for a Condemnation.

Honestly, getting the Black Hawks recognized is exactly what they want. You're giving them free advertising and a huge potential for new recruits for their operations, and just like the last Condemnation, it won't probably affect them.

Finally, do you actually think another Condemnation is going to do anything? They've already been condemned once, and it apparently didn't seem to do anything lasting, so what is another condemnation going to do? Anything? Wait for a 3rd Condemnation? I like this side of the community, that the first instant some 'bad stuff' occurs you don't THINK and instantly try for a condemnation, and bring all of the powerful liberal nations to your side. Opposed.

TL:DR - Read It.

1) There is quite a bit of stuff that they did do mentioned and listed in the resolution, I just didn't feel like summarizing.
2) I'll just note here that I am not a Defender, nor do I ever plan on being one. Anyways, as listed by the resolution in question, they have invaded more than a 'few old regions,' with 14 being specifically listed, one of which is an ongoing one (Illuminati), and 10 more of which were listed in the first draft. There's also their creation of RaiderCon, and the mentioned Operation Blackout.
3-4) As far as I'm aware, at no point during the drafting process was it expected that another Condemnation would do anything to their operations. I'm pretty sure that the point was to recognize their reprehensible achievements in raiding. Maybe they'll get a third condemnation, if they were to wait another 6 years from the passage of this one, which is the time gap between this one and the original one.

But what exactly happens to them?Are they forcibly disbanded or driven from the land they conquered?

New Jaedonstan wrote:But what exactly happens to them?Are they forcibly disbanded or driven from the land they conquered?

Literally nothing at all.

New Jaedonstan wrote:But what exactly happens to them?Are they forcibly disbanded or driven from the land they conquered?

They get a nice shiny badge. That's it.

That's stupid.

So if nothing actually happens to the Black Hawks, what is the point of the Security Council?

If they are invading and such, why don't we use their own weapons against them? Take them over and disband them forcibly like the security council motto?

New Jaedonstan wrote:If they are invading and such, why don't we use their own weapons against them? Take them over and disband them forcibly like the security council motto?

That would be really mean! Why would you do that?