[DEFEATED] Repeal “Condemn the Black Hawks”

[Queen Yuno]

The fact of the matter is that the Black Hawks are a raider organization that takes pride in their condemnations. They do not deserve recognition for their atrocities.

I agree with the proposal and encourage all WA Nations to make the right decision.

Then what is the point of the existance of a Condemnation badge in the first place?


-----

Looks like ~ninety percent of TEP's natives voted against the proposal so I did the same.

[Luziland]

came here because i couldn't decide if i should vote "for" or "against". after reading the entire thread, i still can't decide. i guess i'll vote "for" because it seems like "against" is gonna win.

[Of the Germanic kingdoms]

I support

[Russian Federation white ethnostate]

The war crimes of the black hawk will not go un noticed I say sanctions are only thing they should be receiving from the security council their African leader has shown to be a tyrant, warmonger and a threat to the white people of africa as a European power I am inclined to help my fellow Europeans in africa and therefore the Russian Federation condemns the actions of the black hawk either way the quicker they are gone the better

[Deropia]

The war crimes of the black hawk will not go un noticed I say sanctions are only thing they should be receiving from the security council their African leader has shown to be a tyrant, warmonger and a threat to the white people of africa as a European power I am inclined to help my fellow Europeans in africa and therefore the Russian Federation condemns the actions of the black hawk either way the quicker they are gone the better

What?? I think you're confused...the Security Council doesn't do sanctions.

[The Noble Thatcherites]

(Image)

In exercise of powers granted to me under section 2(a)(i) of the Telegrams (World Assembly) Act 2016, duly passed and ratified by the European Parliament and granted assent by the founder, 31 May 2016, I hereby vote AGAINST this proposal.

For the author's sake, this is what IA is talking about.

I apologize if I've trampled on the perogatives of the World Assembly. I wasn't aware that this Accord existed. I still highly doubt that I would've gotten the votes of any of the signatories. :/

For the purpose of transparency, here is the telegram I sent:

Dearest %NATION%,

I am writing to you today to discuss SC#52, ‘Condemn the Black Hawks’, and to propose its repeal. 

Although most Security Council Condemnations are written very well and thoroughly outline the acts of raiders, some, like SC#52, do not. And for three principal reasons. 
SC#52 discussed raiding as if it were illegal, which, by law, it isn’t.
The proposal alleged that the Black Hawks attempted to commend their own nation and that somehow this attempt was a ‘[conspiracy] against the Security Council’. There was never any evidence presented at the time, nor has any been presented since, proving that it was true. This allegation was a lie.
The proposal ends by alleging that the Black Hawks threatened members of the World Assembly and that in doing so they’ve caused a ‘cooling effect on free speech’. Once again, there is no evidence that anything like this happened.

For these reasons, I believe that the first proposal was poorly written and must be repealed, nor should any proposal of the World Assembly that fabricates evidence remain law. To this end, I’ve written the following proposal:

[PROPOSAL TEXT]

A condemnation is seen as a badge of honour by many raiders, and some believe that the Black Hawks deserve their condemnations for raiding. But their first condemnation, SC#52, made false allegations, and for this reason, should be repealed. Were it to be repealed, they would be left with a single, studiously written condemnation, SC#217, which properly outlines their acts against world peace.

Detractors of my proposal have said that SC#52 holds historical status, being the first one approved by the Security Council for raiding other regions. But, as veterans of the Security Council have shown many times before, SC#52 is not the first condemnation for raiding, but SC#1, ‘Condemn Macedon’, which, though horribly written, condemned the titled region for the exact same reasons that SC#52 condemned the Black Hawks.  

To learn more about this proposal, check out the forum thread here: ./viewtopic.php?f=24&t=425050

To support this proposal, please approve it here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=sc

Sincerely,
- [nation=short]The Noble Thatcherites[/nation]

[Wrapper]

Just to clarify, you didn't do anything wrong, or anything against the rules. This is just a few large regions' way of sabotaging any attempts to "buy" votes.

[CheeseSnackistan]

The text of this resolution needs editing to correct misspellings and eliminate weasel words. For its author: back to English 101. We vote in the negative.

[Ziotah and Riverside]

Ziotah and Riverside has long taken a strong stance against raider regions and their participants. We see no reason to repeal and vote Against.

[The Noble Thatcherites]

Just to clarify, you didn't do anything wrong, or anything against the rules. This is just a few large regions' way of sabotaging any attempts to "buy" votes.

Ohh. Okay. Well Thank You for the info then.

[The Noble Thatcherites]

Ziotah and Riverside has long taken a strong stance against raider regions and their participants. We see no reason to repeal and vote Against.

I would hope that you might re read and re consider my proposal. I also stand against raiders, but I also stand against aweful language.

The text of this resolution needs editing to correct misspellings and eliminate weasel words. For its author: back to English 101. We vote in the negative.

My proposal was on this forum for nearly two months. No one pointed out any needs for change except for when Sil Dorsett proposed a legality issue. Where are the grammatical issues in the proposal? I can’t change it now, but I’d like to know for future reference.

[Archers Bow]

"Assembly, my delegation has listened to the various arguments in favour and against, especially those made by the authors, the delegation from The Noble Thatcherites. Although we agree that there are faults with the condemnation of The Black Hawks, our biggest issue is one of the last lines of the proposal.

COGNIZANT that raiders view condemnation resolutions as badges of honor or awards by the Security Council;

Although there may be some truth in this, and we should be careful not to encourage this. If we write it into international law, we create an informal precedent that undermines the whole point of the Security Council. If we don't issue condemnations out of fear of creating a "badge of honour" for those who do wrong in our world, we won't issue any condemnations. If we don't issue any condemnations, the Security Council loses its ability to issue a consensus of what is right and what is wrong, and we risk normalising behaviour through our silence.

For that reason, the delegation of the Republic of Archer's Bow will be voting against the proposal."

Linda Agnarsson
Permanent Representative of the Republic of Archer's Bow to the World Assembly

[CheeseSnackistan]

My proposal was on this forum for nearly two months. No one pointed out any needs for change except for when Sil Dorsett proposed a legality issue. Where are the grammatical issues in the proposal? I can’t change it now, but I’d like to know for future reference.

The following are what we have observed:
the run-on nature of the third clause renders it a collection of disjointed phrases;
use of the contraction haven’t (instead of have not) in the third clause is improper for an official document;
the word regions (plural) in the fourth clause should be region’s (possessive);
the weasel phrase can be interpreted in the fifth clause demands a “by whom” that is absent;
use of the numeral 5 (instead of five) in the sixth clause is improper for an official document.
We realize this is pernickety, but Security Council resolutions must have grammatical propriety as well as legal propriety.

[The Noble Thatcherites]

(Image)

"Assembly, my delegation has listened to the various arguments in favour and against, especially those made by the authors, the delegation from The Noble Thatcherites. Although we agree that there are faults with the condemnation of The Black Hawks, our biggest issue is one of the last lines of the proposal.

COGNIZANT that raiders view condemnation resolutions as badges of honor or awards by the Security Council;

Although there may be some truth in this, and we should be careful not to encourage this. If we write it into international law, we create an informal precedent that undermines the whole point of the Security Council. If we don't issue condemnations out of fear of creating a "badge of honour" for those who do wrong in our world, we won't issue any condemnations. If we don't issue any condemnations, the Security Council loses its ability to issue a consensus of what is right and what is wrong, and we risk normalising behaviour through our silence.

For that reason, the delegation of the Republic of Archer's Bow will be voting against the proposal."

Linda Agnarsson
Permanent Representative of the Republic of Archer's Bow to the World Assembly

I understand your concerns, but this line isn’t unique to my proposal. It was used in SCR#232, SCR#230 & SCR#227 just to name a few.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

(Image)

In exercise of powers granted to me under section 2(a)(i) of the Telegrams (World Assembly) Act 2016, duly passed and ratified by the European Parliament and granted assent by the founder, 31 May 2016, I hereby vote AGAINST this proposal.

For the author's sake, this is what IA is talking about.

I apologize if I've trampled on the perogatives of the World Assembly. I wasn't aware that this Accord existed. I still highly doubt that I would've gotten the votes of any of the signatories. :/

For the purpose of transparency, here is the telegram I sent:

Dearest %NATION%,

I am writing to you today to discuss SC#52, ‘Condemn the Black Hawks’, and to propose its repeal. 

Although most Security Council Condemnations are written very well and thoroughly outline the acts of raiders, some, like SC#52, do not. And for three principal reasons. 
SC#52 discussed raiding as if it were illegal, which, by law, it isn’t.
The proposal alleged that the Black Hawks attempted to commend their own nation and that somehow this attempt was a ‘[conspiracy] against the Security Council’. There was never any evidence presented at the time, nor has any been presented since, proving that it was true. This allegation was a lie.
The proposal ends by alleging that the Black Hawks threatened members of the World Assembly and that in doing so they’ve caused a ‘cooling effect on free speech’. Once again, there is no evidence that anything like this happened.

For these reasons, I believe that the first proposal was poorly written and must be repealed, nor should any proposal of the World Assembly that fabricates evidence remain law. To this end, I’ve written the following proposal:

[PROPOSAL TEXT]

A condemnation is seen as a badge of honour by many raiders, and some believe that the Black Hawks deserve their condemnations for raiding. But their first condemnation, SC#52, made false allegations, and for this reason, should be repealed. Were it to be repealed, they would be left with a single, studiously written condemnation, SC#217, which properly outlines their acts against world peace.

Detractors of my proposal have said that SC#52 holds historical status, being the first one approved by the Security Council for raiding other regions. But, as veterans of the Security Council have shown many times before, SC#52 is not the first condemnation for raiding, but SC#1, ‘Condemn Macedon’, which, though horribly written, condemned the titled region for the exact same reasons that SC#52 condemned the Black Hawks.  

To learn more about this proposal, check out the forum thread here: ./viewtopic.php?f=24&t=425050

To support this proposal, please approve it here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=sc

Sincerely,
- [nation=short]The Noble Thatcherites[/nation]

Gonna be honest here, I initially voted against specifically because I'd gotten a TG saying to vote for it.

My proposal was on this forum for nearly two months. No one pointed out any needs for change except for when Sil Dorsett proposed a legality issue. Where are the grammatical issues in the proposal? I can’t change it now, but I’d like to know for future reference.

The following are what we have observed:
the run-on nature of the third clause renders it a collection of disjointed phrases;
use of the contraction haven’t (instead of have not) in the third clause is improper for an official document;
the word regions (plural) in the fourth clause should be region’s (possessive);
the weasel phrase can be interpreted in the fifth clause demands a “by whom” that is absent;
use of the numeral 5 (instead of five) in the sixth clause is improper for an official document.
We realize this is pernickety, but Security Council resolutions must have grammatical propriety as well as legal propriety.

I usually let my vote be decided by the merits of the bill, not its grammar.
My people might disagree with me, but what's the point in being Dictator if you have to listen to their complaints?

[The Noble Thatcherites]

My proposal was on this forum for nearly two months. No one pointed out any needs for change except for when Sil Dorsett proposed a legality issue. Where are the grammatical issues in the proposal? I can’t change it now, but I’d like to know for future reference.

The following are what we have observed:
the run-on nature of the third clause renders it a collection of disjointed phrases;
use of the contraction haven’t (instead of have not) in the third clause is improper for an official document;
the word regions (plural) in the fourth clause should be region’s (possessive);
the weasel phrase can be interpreted in the fifth clause demands a “by whom” that is absent;
use of the numeral 5 (instead of five) in the sixth clause is improper for an official document.
We realize this is pernickety, but Security Council resolutions must have grammatical propriety as well as legal propriety.

Almost everything you said was opinion based...

Regardless, I'll make sure to check for those things in the future.

[CheeseSnackistan]

Almost everything you said was opinion based... Regardless, I'll make sure to check for those things in the future.

It is most definitely our resolutely held opinion that the proposal is grammatically lacking. You are obviously free to agree or disagree with us. We do not care; and you have not changed our minds about casting our vote in the negative.

One way or the other, we wish your glorious nation prosperity and peace.

[CheeseSnackistan]

I usually let my vote be decided by the merits of the bill, not its grammar.

Well bless your heart. We're not so different, your nation and ours. We look at the merits first and foremost... we feel this proposal has none. Then we look at comparatively inconsequential things, like grammar. Did we not say that we realize our grammar-based objections were pernickety? Yes... yes we did, in fact. All things taken into consideration (and, lest there be any confusion, by "all things" we most certainly mean all things), we will not be changing our vote. We stand opposed to this proposal... for reasons that really only need to be good enough for us.

Long may your glorious nation prosper and thrive.

[The Noble Thatcherites]

I usually let my vote be decided by the merits of the bill, not its grammar.

We look at the merits first and foremost... we feel this proposal has none.

Why does my proposal lack merit?

Whether you agree or disagree with the politics or historical value of the original resolution, mine still gives a reasonable argument for repeal.

Some resolutions won't be repealed by this assembly, because of their historical value. SCR#1 is a prime example of this at work; the SC will not under any circumstances repeal it- its history. I wasn't aware that SCR#52 was held to this regard and that is why my proposal is failing, not beacause it lacks merit.

[Jakker]

Some resolutions won't be repealed by this assembly, because of their historical value. SCR#1 is a prime example of this at work; the SC will not under any circumstances repeal it- its history. I wasn't aware that SCR#52 was held to this regard and that is why my proposal is failing, not beacause it lacks merit.

I'm happy to see that this is being proven.

[Consular]

In exercise of powers granted to me under section 2(a)(i) of the Telegrams (World Assembly) Act 2016, duly passed and ratified by the European Parliament and granted assent by the founder, 31 May 2016, I hereby vote AGAINST this proposal.[/blocktext]

For the author's sake, this is what IA is talking about.

Europe actually enforces that garbage? As I recall it was unpopular enough that even Euro dropped it.

[Lizz Synna]

Taking a drink of water a man with lightly balding white hair on the top of his head and pushed in small frame glasses takes a look at the room clearing his throat intending to speak
I think, instead of doing this back and forth drivel. We should take a strong stance against raiding and the damages it causes, it's not a

game play element

it's a needless aggression. Unlike imperialism, it lacks any sort of diplomatic way to regulate and all it boils down to is various so-called raider clans attacking and destroying to gain nothing.

If our purpose is to defend the peace we should take a strong stance against.

The Lizz Synna ambassador points straight at Black Hawk

Terrible raiding nations and factions such as that, and it should be the security councils drive to make it so that if you raid. You get raided. That!

He sticks his finger up at "That!"

Will deter further raids and harm against Innocent people and stop wasting the council's time with these useless repeals so the raider clan has one less badge of honor.

The Lizz Synaa ambassador sits back down looking around the room

Thank you.

[The Atlae Isles]

OOC: The SC is mostly OOC, but I'll respond IC.

George Williamsen laughs. "You don't really think that this will stop all of raiderdom? Raiders gotta raid, after all. Also, what's wrong with a few good raids here and there?"

He puts down his whiskey glass and continues, "I also don't get the logic that taking away a badge of honor will deter raiding."

[Swedish Communist Party]

I have Noticed that since this was mentioned they have been on a recruitment drive

[Lizz Synna]

Removing the "badge of honor" will limit the amount of people that feel inclined to join up with The Black Hawks. Also, if we make it less profitable and easy to raid by applying serious re-percussions people will of course be less likely to do it, not saying it would exterminate it all together but it would severely impact the raiding community as a whole.