NationStates

Posted: **Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:51 pm**

[*]Greetings! This is my proposal for the Security Council. I would greatly appreciate tips, suggestions and comments.

Notes:

A brief defence of the "RECOGNIZING" clause: The first proposal, having been passed in 2011, does not list any any of the actions by the Black Hawks. It vaguely discusses that raiding is bad and that the voting process is somehow in jeopardy because the Black Hawks plan to raid the regions that vote in favour. The proposal uses itself as an engine to move forward, not the fact that the Black Hawks are dangerous raiders. These reasons are probably why it passed with such a tight margin. In contrast, the second condemnation gives very clear and legitimate examples as to why the Black Hawks deserve to be condemned.

Please give me as much feedback as posssible, Thank you.

Proposal:

Security Council Resolution # 52 “Condemn The Black Hawks” shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The Security Council,

APPRECIATING the noble intentions of SC#52 to condemn the actions of the Black Hawks;

NOTING that SC#52 stated that the Black Hawks attempted to conspire against the Security Council by attempting “to commend their own nation by drafting the text”, an action which does not particularly meet standards for Security Council attention;

FURTHER NOTING that while SC#52 stated that “a vote in favor of this resolution will make World Assembly delegates and their regions targets of The Black Hawks, as has been reported following previous proposal attempts.” while the contrary was actually true, with a majority of World Assembly votes cast from regions that haven't had their original founder nation levelled and destroyed, feeder and sinker regions, raider allies, or regions already under raider control, thus making them invulnerable to raids;

REMEMBERING that Individual World Assembly voters can vote however they choose on an issue and are not required to vote in line with their regions delegate, thus making a raid useless in threatening the members of this body;

OBSERVING that SC#52 used extremely vague language such as stating that targeting can cause a ‘cooling effect on free speech' and a 'cooling effect on democracy', and that such phrases can be interpreted in many different ways thus making them meaningless in the context of the original proposal;

RECOGNIZING that a properly sufficient condemnation has already been ratified by this body, SC#217 detailed the many crimes of the Black Hawks, including toppling at least 5 of the top WA Delegate records, the brutal occupation of at least 14 regions, the infiltration of Osiris, and many other heinous acts;

RECALLING that SC#52 made no mention of the Black Hawks’ many indecent acts against the regions of the World;

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

Hereby repeals Security Council Resolution #52.

Security Council Resolution # 52 “Condemn The Black Hawks” shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The Security Council,

APPRECIATING the noble intentions of SC#52 to condemn the actions of the Black Hawks;

NOTING that SC#52 stated that the Black Hawks attempted to conspire against the Security Council by attempting “to commend their own nation by drafting the text”, an action which does not particularly meet standards for Security Council attention;

FURTHER NOTING that while SC#52 stated that “a vote in favor of this resolution will make World Assembly delegates and their regions targets of The Black Hawks, as has been reported following previous proposal attempts.” while the contrary was actually true, with a majority of World Assembly votes cast from regions with founders, game created regions, raider allies, or already under raider control, thus making them invulnerable to raids;

REMEMBERING that Individual World Assembly voters can vote however they choose on an issue and are not required to vote in line with their regions delegate, thus making a raid useless in threatening the members of this body;

OBSERVING that SC#52 used extremely vague language such as stating that targeting can cause a ‘cooling effect on free speech' and a 'cooling effect on democracy', and that such phrases can be interpreted in many different ways thus making them meaningless in the context of the original proposal;

RECOGNIZING that a properly sufficient condemnation has already been ratified by this body, SC#217 detailed the many crimes of the Black Hawks, including toppling at least 5 of the top WA Delegate records, the brutal occupation of at least 14 regions, the infiltration of Osiris, and many other heinous acts;

RECALLING that SC#52 made no mention of the Black Hawks’ many indecent acts against the regions of the World;

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

BELIEVING that the Black Hawks, which have committed many indecent acts against other regions should not have any sort of recognition by the Security Council;

Hereby repeals Security Council Resolution #52.

Posted: **Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:56 pm**

Whilst I researched my own ill-fated repeal of SC#52, it turns out that the resolution in question didn't even get to quorum, missing out by one approval. To my awareness, TBH did not take out revenge on any of the 50 (or so) regions with delegates that approved the proposal due to their doing so, but someone can correct me if necessary.

Posted: **Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:19 pm**

Basically what I grasped when you first showed me this & every time sense is that the core argument of this is that TBH deserves a better second condemnation, would I be correct in that?

Posted: **Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:31 pm**

Kanglia wrote:Basically what I grasped when you first showed me this & every time sense is that the core argument of this is that TBH deserves a better second condemnation, would I be correct in that?

Nah. The second condemnation is wonderful. The first, not so much.

Posted: **Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:58 pm**

Support.

Posted: **Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:21 pm**

Fauxia wrote:Support.

Thanks Fauxia

Posted: **Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:26 pm**

In favour of this repeal.

Posted: **Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:34 pm**

I'll just post the same thing I post every time someone tries this. The proposal in question has a major historical significance within the SC and that should not be forgotten simply because it could have been better written.

Jakker wrote:You are losing sight of the significance of #52. Let me draw from posts in the voting thread of that exact resolution to show you the historical importance of #52 and its vast differences to the condemnation at vote.

In regards to the importance of #52, check out these posts:
viewtopic.php?p=5255544#p5255544
viewtopic.php?p=5264549#p5264549

TBH was the first region to be condemned for raiding. As EW notes in the second link, "this was less a shot to TBH themselves and more a direct snipe against raiding in general. There was nothing mentioned in that Condemn that every single Crasher group in NS doesn't also do." The proposal was written to target raiding as a whole and the author chose TBH as raiding's symbol.

Furthermore, several defenders and Mikeswill voted for the condemnation. Those things do not happen, but they did for a reason. At that moment, this resolution mattered.

In regards to its similarity to the current condemnation:
The two resolutions are completely different not only because of what I discussed above, but also because TBH was perceived as a different region back then. As you can see from these posts:
viewtopic.php?p=5211686#p5211686
viewtopic.php?p=5223198#p5223198
viewtopic.php?p=5242777#p5242777

These posts show that around that time, TBH was known for its tag raiding, which is a different perception than today. As you can see from the current resolution, virtually every point touches upon TBH's shift to hitting larging targets and overall large-scale events. Simply because there are two condemnations does not mean that the first is "irrelevant" at all.

In conclusion, your point that condemnations are viewed as a point of pride does not matter. It was a thing back then too. When there is no effect besides a badge, that is what happens. The only point that I will give you is that the proposal is not well-written. Everyone knows that. People knew that back then, but it still passed. There is such much more beyond the words that trying to repeal this condemnation is erasing a significant part of SC history.

Posted: **Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:24 pm**

As we've recently learned in the Security Council, setting precedents in the world is no longer Commend/Condemn worthy if many regions nowadays follow your example. Invading regions is no longer special, nor is it remarkable to have defenders support condemnation proposals.

Posted: **Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:13 pm**

Benevolent Thomas wrote:As we've recently learned in the Security Council, setting precedents in the world is no longer Commend/Condemn worthy if many regions nowadays follow your example. Invading regions is no longer special, nor is it remarkable to have defenders support condemnation proposals.

Your bitterness has no relevance here.

Posted: **Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:38 pm**

Jakker wrote:I'll just post the same thing I post every time someone tries this. The proposal in question has a major historical significance within the SC and that should not be forgotten simply because it could have been better written.

Firstly, I am not against the original proposal because it was written poorly. Yes it could have been written better, but that is not what my repeal focuses on. I understand that times change in the Security Council and standards appropriate 6 years ago aren't appropriate today. My repeal dives into the facts of the original and it touches why those facts are inaccurate and baseless.

Jakker wrote:
Jakker wrote:You are losing sight of the significance of #52. Let me draw from posts in the voting thread of that exact resolution to show you the historical importance of #52 and its vast differences to the condemnation at vote.

In regards to the importance of #52, check out these posts:
viewtopic.php?p=5255544#p5255544
viewtopic.php?p=5264549#p5264549

TBH was the first region to be condemned for raiding. As EW notes in the second link, "this was less a shot to TBH themselves and more a direct snipe against raiding in general. There was nothing mentioned in that Condemn that every single Crasher group in NS doesn't also do." The proposal was written to target raiding as a whole and the author chose TBH as raiding's symbol.

Yes a new precedent was set, but was it ever followed? Did other proposals follow the precedent set by SC#52? Obviously not. 52 created this weak precedent that raiding itself should be condemned through its most influential member, the Black Hawks. If it was an agreeable and acceptable precedent then why hasn’t groups like HYDRA or The Invaders which have surely given The Black Hawks a run for their money as the most important and influential organization been condemned for these same reasons? The answer is quite simple. Under the terms of SC#52, which established raiding as an evil, every raider group should be condemned! Every single one. The reason that this hasn’t been tried is because doing so would devalue a condemnation. However historical the first proposal was, it was controversial and narrowly passed for a reason. It set a ridiculous precedent which needs to be repealed.

Jakker wrote:
Jakker wrote:These posts show that around that time, TBH was known for its tag raiding, which is a different perception than today. As you can see from the current resolution, virtually every point touches upon TBH's shift to hitting larging targets and overall large-scale events. Simply because there are two condemnations does not mean that the first is "irrelevant" at all.

In conclusion, your point that condemnations are viewed as a point of pride does not matter. It was a thing back then too. When there is no effect besides a badge, that is what happens. The only point that I will give you is that the proposal is not well-written. Everyone knows that. People knew that back then, but it still passed. There is such much more beyond the words that trying to repeal this condemnation is erasing a significant part of SC history.

Again, my repeal is very different that the one you mentioned here, I focused on what was lacking in the first and why the justifications were false.

To continue, if SC#52 set such a historical precedent then why was a second condemnation required? Why wasn’t the first enough? Perhaps it was because the original proposal lacked clear evidence against the Black Hawks, something that SC proposals need.

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:01 am**

Agreed. Will Support

Posted: **Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:22 am**

The Noble Thatcherites wrote:Again, my repeal is very different that the one you mentioned here, I focused on what was lacking in the first and why the justifications were false.

To continue, if SC#52 set such a historical precedent then why was a second condemnation required? Why wasn’t the first enough? Perhaps it was because the original proposal lacked clear evidence against the Black Hawks, something that SC proposals need.

Everything listed in the second condemnation occurred AFTER the first was passed. The second condemnation occurred because the SC agreed that The Black Hawks deserved two condemnations. It has nothing to do with the first's lack of evidence. Please do the research and you will see that this is true. You can even speak to the authors of the second condemnation and they will agree with my sentiments.

Posted: **Thu Oct 05, 2017 6:47 am**

Jakker wrote:
The Noble Thatcherites wrote:Again, my repeal is very different that the one you mentioned here, I focused on what was lacking in the first and why the justifications were false.

To continue, if SC#52 set such a historical precedent then why was a second condemnation required? Why wasn’t the first enough? Perhaps it was because the original proposal lacked clear evidence against the Black Hawks, something that SC proposals need.

Everything listed in the second condemnation occurred AFTER the first was passed. The second condemnation occurred because the SC agreed that The Black Hawks deserved two condemnations. It has nothing to do with the first's lack of evidence. Please do the research and you will see that this is true. You can even speak to the authors of the second condemnation and they will agree with my sentiments.

The authors of the second would obviously agree. I do concede though. I stand corrected, although this repeal highlights the good parts of the second and the faulty parts of the first.

Posted: **Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:52 am**

Benevolent Thomas wrote:As we've recently learned in the Security Council, setting precedents in the world is no longer Commend/Condemn worthy if many regions nowadays follow your example. Invading regions is no longer special, nor is it remarkable to have defenders support condemnation proposals.

Thing is, by the time Texas was commended, very little of the things they did as a region were remotely unique - about the only truly merited bits were the tech and the tech doesn't work anymore, which was raised in the previous repeal. Texas wasn't commended as a way to commend all regions that have regular community chats or whatnot. TBH was condemned as a stand in for all raiding.

Posted: **Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:16 pm**

Kylia Quilor wrote:
Benevolent Thomas wrote:As we've recently learned in the Security Council, setting precedents in the world is no longer Commend/Condemn worthy if many regions nowadays follow your example. Invading regions is no longer special, nor is it remarkable to have defenders support condemnation proposals.

Thing is, by the time Texas was commended, very little of the things they did as a region were remotely unique - about the only truly merited bits were the tech and the tech doesn't work anymore, which was raised in the previous repeal. Texas wasn't commended as a way to commend all regions that have regular community chats or whatnot. TBH was condemned as a stand in for all raiding.

What does TBH do that is unique?

I'm not sure all of raiderdom would agree that TBH is a stand in for everyone.

Posted: **Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:56 pm**

Consular wrote:
Kylia Quilor wrote:Thing is, by the time Texas was commended, very little of the things they did as a region were remotely unique - about the only truly merited bits were the tech and the tech doesn't work anymore, which was raised in the previous repeal. Texas wasn't commended as a way to commend all regions that have regular community chats or whatnot. TBH was condemned as a stand in for all raiding.

What does TBH do that is unique?

I'm not sure all of raiderdom would agree that TBH is a stand in for everyone.

At the time, the resolution reflects uniqueness and a symbol of raiding. TBH was the first region to be condemned and there was not another raiding organization condemned until a year and a half later.

When this resolution was passed, TBH was revolutionizing tag raiding. Regardless of one's opinion of tag raiding, this style was unique and new at the time. Furthermore, TBH is unique in the standards they have set in raiding and their longevity.

The idea of condemning a region for raiding was controversial at the time. When this resolution passed, it largely changed how condemnations in the SC were viewed. This resolution was what truly started condemnations being regarded as "badges of honor". This resolution was significant on many fronts and even with the text not being written super well, the language reflects how TBH was viewed as the representation of raiding by many natives. And the fact that many defenders, raiders, etc. voted for the resolution further highlights this point.

Posted: **Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:55 pm**

Kylia Quilor wrote:Thing is, by the time Texas was commended, very little of the things they did as a region were remotely unique - about the only truly merited bits were the tech and the tech doesn't work anymore, which was raised in the previous repeal. Texas wasn't commended as a way to commend all regions that have regular community chats or whatnot. TBH was condemned as a stand in for all raiding.

(Emphasis naturally mine.) Since the things TBH do aren't unique anymore, you're 100% in favor of this repeal?

To elaborate: according to you, apparently the time resolutions or potential resolutions are written serves as an effective argument for repealing it.

Or are you against this repeal "because raiding", political expedience, or because Jakker likes his shiny badge?

Posted: **Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:43 pm**

Ramaeus wrote:
Kylia Quilor wrote:Thing is, by the time Texas was commended, very little of the things they did as a region were remotely unique - about the only truly merited bits were the tech and the tech doesn't work anymore, which was raised in the previous repeal. Texas wasn't commended as a way to commend all regions that have regular community chats or whatnot. TBH was condemned as a stand in for all raiding.
(Emphasis naturally mine.) Since the things TBH do aren't unique anymore, you're 100% in favor of this repeal?

To elaborate: according to you, apparently the time resolutions or potential resolutions are written serves as an effective argument for repealing it.

Or are you against this repeal "because raiding", political expedience, or because Jakker likes his shiny badge?

The difference is that Texas's actions weren't unique when commeneded. Obviously, 99% of innovative things end up not being innovative as more people do it. By that logic, we should repeal all old commends and condemns because the things in them are old, not really that special or unique, and don't affect anyone anymore. You're trying to throw out the context of the resolution, which was the reason it was passed in the first place.

Posted: **Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:45 pm**

Raionitu wrote:The difference is that Texas's actions weren't unique when commeneded.

That's remarkably...unique reasoning.

Since Commend Loop and Commend ASBS detail actions that weren't particularly unique when they were commended, I fully expect a repeal in the coming days. Chop, chop!

Posted: **Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:39 am**

Jakker wrote:At the time, the resolution reflects uniqueness and a symbol of raiding. TBH was the first region to be condemned and there was not another raiding organization condemned until a year and a half later.

When this resolution was passed, TBH was revolutionizing tag raiding. Regardless of one's opinion of tag raiding, this style was unique and new at the time.

But what TBH does is no longer unique.

And I'm really not convinced that just because you were the first, means you should get enduring recognition in this way. Especially since condemnations are far from unique now.

I guess I just feel like much of the condemnation is not unique, and otherwise quite unremarkable.

Wasn't that the argument advanced in Repeal Commend Texas? That since historical achievements seem unremarkable today they are no longer deserving of attention? I'm just trying to get some sense of consistency here.

That quite aside, I don't think one's opinion of tag raiding is entirely irrelevant here. Since you brought it up: Why should a tedious activity that achieves nothing merit Security Council attention? Why should its creation merit enduring attention even today? Since you acknowledge yourself that this resolution is a badge of honour -- why reward you for what many consider the degradation, not revolution, of invading?

You weren't even the best at tag raiding (and you still aren't).

Jakker wrote:Furthermore, TBH is unique in the standards they have set in raiding and their longevity.

Is longevity something deserving of attention? TBH has gone through long periods of inactivity too.

"Just because regions are old doesn't mean that they should be recognized by the security council." - Souls

Jakker wrote:The idea of condemning a region for raiding was controversial at the time. When this resolution passed, it largely changed how condemnations in the SC were viewed. This resolution was what truly started condemnations being regarded as "badges of honor". This resolution was significant on many fronts and even with the text not being written super well, the language reflects how TBH was viewed as the representation of raiding by many natives. And the fact that many defenders, raiders, etc. voted for the resolution further highlights this point.

But like above, this is all not unique at all anymore.

Posted: **Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:17 am**

The longevity argument isn't simply about TBH being old. It's about TBH having a significant impact on raiding over a long period of time. After the first resolution was passed, TBH had more than enough noteable achievements for a second. I will reiterate my two main points that the resolution itself is objectively historically significant for the SC and the passing of the second resolution showed that NS believes TBH to be deserving of two condemnations.

Posted: **Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:38 pm**

Against.

Posted: **Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:48 pm**

Jakker wrote:The longevity argument isn't simply about TBH being old. It's about TBH having a significant impact on raiding over a long period of time. After the first resolution was passed, TBH had more than enough noteable achievements for a second. I will reiterate my two main points that the resolution itself is objectively historically significant for the SC and the passing of the second resolution showed that NS believes TBH to be deserving of two condemnations.

I think we've established now though that historical significance isn't a reason to keep a resolution.

Posted: **Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:10 pm**

Consular wrote:
Jakker wrote:The longevity argument isn't simply about TBH being old. It's about TBH having a significant impact on raiding over a long period of time. After the first resolution was passed, TBH had more than enough noteable achievements for a second. I will reiterate my two main points that the resolution itself is objectively historically significant for the SC and the passing of the second resolution showed that NS believes TBH to be deserving of two condemnations.

I think we've established now though that historical significance isn't a reason to keep a resolution.

Please show me where it has been established that the historical significance of a resolution doesn't play a factor because in fact the opposite has been stated. For example, during times when attempts to repeal Condemn Macedon have been made. There has also been arguments to repeal older resolutions due to poor writing and historical significance has been brought up as a factor as well to not repeal.

NationStates

[DEFEATED] Repeal “Condemn the Black Hawks”

[DEFEATED] Repeal “Condemn the Black Hawks”