[Passed] Condemn The Black Hawks

by **The Stalker** » Tue Feb 21, 2017 6:29 pm

Oh my god... that's just so annoying.

by **Conservative Values** » Tue Feb 21, 2017 6:31 pm

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Counted, 22 line breaks, aye. That's a bit dirty. >.>

The Stalker wrote:Oh my god... that's just so annoying.

I can recall it happening a long long time ago as well is the only reason I knew. I'm not sure why MS Word would not give you the figure with them included (as it does with spaces). Seems like Microsoft dropped the ball not NS, as a line break is definitely a character.

by **The Stalker** » Tue Feb 21, 2017 6:51 pm

Aight, I made more room for lines breaks...

SUBMITTED!

by **Bhang Bhang Duc** » Wed Feb 22, 2017 8:44 am

And it has reached quorum. Well done!

by **The Stalker** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:23 am

Wow and a vote stack out the gates making this pretty unlikely. Jeez, wish people gave input on disagreeing...

by **Tinhampton** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:30 am

The Stalker wrote:Wow and a vote stack out the gates making this pretty unlikely. Jeez, wish people gave input on disagreeing...

Well, not so much a vote stack as Plem casting his vote against the resolution. Never say never, especially when you've only just started...

by **Lord Dominator** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:38 am

The general populace is voting FOR more than against, as will I at some point.
It seems possible that hatred of raiders will overcome stacking.

by **Dormill and Stiura** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:41 am

One day I'll return to raiding...

One day I may become the target of a condemnation...

Today, however, is not that day.

by **The Stalker** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:41 am

Fair points, I may have jumped the gun a little, still bad way to start with TNP and TRR against. :/

by **Lord Dominator** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:43 am

The Stalker wrote:Fair points, I may have jumped the gun a little, still bad way to start with TNP and TRR against. :/

You still have TWP voting For though.

by **Sygian II** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:45 am

The Stalker wrote:Fair points, I may have jumped the gun a little, still bad way to start with TNP and TRR against. :/

Nah, you didn't rush anything at all, people just may not be able to access the SC forum or something. TSP and Lazarus are likely to vote against as well, so the GCRs will be divided. Like the last few proposals, it will probably be up to the individual nations themselves.

by **WA Projection Agency** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:51 am

Resolution #217 of the Security Council, a.k.a Condemn the Black Hawks is Too Close to Call.

by **Sygian II** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:00 am

WA Projection Agency wrote:
Resolution #217 of the Security Council, a.k.a Condemn the Black Hawks is Too Close to Call.

I could have clicked the "World Assembly" button on the side of my screen if I wanted to know that. :blush:

by **Cerian Quilor** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:02 am

Full support.

by **Planerkin** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 12:08 pm

Supporting

by **Laulan** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 12:12 pm

VOTE to condemn these raiders!

by **Ndaku** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:18 pm

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.

by **Cormactopia Prime** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:11 pm

To anyone concerned about The Black Hawks having two condemnations, I just wanted to note that I will be proposing a repeal of the first condemnation if this one passes. Let's at least put a condemnation on the books that has some substance to it.

by **Sygian II** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 3:01 pm

Cormactopia Prime wrote:To anyone concerned about The Black Hawks having two condemnations, I just wanted to note that I will be proposing a repeal of the first condemnation if this one passes. Let's at least put a condemnation on the books that has some substance to it.

The Black Hawks initial condemnation was passed because they raided, and that was the first condemnation to condemn a region for such. Is that not substance enough?

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 3:37 pm

Presumably, now that it has flipped to 4,5776–2,412, Captain Obvious is going to tell us that it's going to pass.

by **States of Glory** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 4:49 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Presumably, now that it has flipped to 4,5776–2,412, Captain Obvious is going to tell us that it's going to pass.

If Brexit and the 2016 US Presidential Election have taught us anything, it's that polls are not to be trusted.

by **Tinhampton** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:25 pm

Sygian II wrote:
Cormactopia Prime wrote:To anyone concerned about The Black Hawks having two condemnations, I just wanted to note that I will be proposing a repeal of the first condemnation if this one passes. Let's at least put a condemnation on the books that has some substance to it.

The Black Hawks initial condemnation was passed because they raided, and that was the first condemnation to condemn a region for such. Is that not substance enough?

I refer you to a statement made by one of the more notable Hawks, Crushing Our Enemies, about six months after the original Condemnation of TBH:

General COE wrote:
Evil Wolf wrote:The Black Hawks got condemned for raiding. According to those standards, someone should have submitted a condemn for each of those above acts individually.

AHEM we got condemned for endangering the functioning and survival of the security council. Thankyouverymuch.

For.

by **Cormactopia Prime** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:54 pm

Cormactopia Prime wrote:To anyone concerned about The Black Hawks having two condemnations, I just wanted to note that I will be proposing a repeal of the first condemnation if this one passes. Let's at least put a condemnation on the books that has some substance to it.

After talking to one of the Hawks and realizing how important SC#52 (the first condemnation) really is to them, I will not be trying to repeal it. I apologize for promising something that may have affected votes, but hopefully correcting myself early will mitigate that.

I do believe, as I've already stated, that The Black Hawks have done enough to warrant two condemnations. We cannot possibly expect as this game is rapidly approaching its third decade that long-lasting regions, organizations, or nations that continue to make an impact will only be commended or condemned once.

by **The Laurentian Federation** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:48 pm

Y a second condemnation?

by **Myopic** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:20 pm

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.

[Passed] Condemn The Black Hawks

Who is online