[DEFEATED] Condemn The Black Hawks (by Union of Caplis)

[Valkyrie Vytherov]

*chanting*
triple
triple
triple

[Nirvacana]

I am conflicted on what to choose any suggestions or point of views to help me decide on what to go for.

[Ziotah and Riverside]

Ziotah and Riverside remains dismayed at the Security Council for their continued support and indifference for international terrorist organizations such The Black Hawks. These groups seek only to terrorize regions and nations with their aggressive military occupations. While Ziotah and Riverside remains a peace-loving country, our foreign policy will continue to be aggressive towards these groups and we will continue to actively seek out individual members of these organizations and bring them to justice.

[Fauxia]

I am conflicted on what to choose any suggestions or point of views to help me decide on what to go for.

TBH already has two condemnations, and all they serve for are publicity. They absolutely do not need a third...

And if they did, it should at least be well written

[Goverwal]

The way in which this is written means that it reads like a referendum on raiding. Without wanting to endorse either TBH or this resolution, I shall be abstaining from this vote.

[Hatterleigh]

Ignore them. Commending them would be completely contrary to your goal, and liberating the region won't work due to having a non-executive delegate. Just put up with them.

Ignoring them is contrary to my goal.

Well then your goal is not only ineffective, but also celebrated by the ranks of The Black Hawks.

[Fauxia]

Ignoring them is contrary to my goal.

Well then your goal is not only ineffective, but also celebrated by the ranks of The Black Hawks.

I second this

Does this post by a Lieutenant in TBH not convince you?

And Union of Caplid- if you have an Executive Delegate and aren’t monitoring the banhammer at update, a region as small as yours is going to be raided sometimes. You don’t have to have that Executive authority given to the Delegate- especially considering you are also the Founder, and have executive already

[Jakker]

Well then your goal is not only ineffective, but also celebrated by the ranks of The Black Hawks.

I second this

Does this post by a Lieutenant in TBH not convince you?

TBH would not have celebrated this condemnation much. They deserve far better.

[Fauxia]

I second this

Does this post by a Lieutenant in TBH not convince you?

TBH would not have celebrated this condemnation much. They deserve far better.

That’s probably true

[Hessere]

I'm surprised some very outspoken defenders haven't discussed this yet. Oh well, the less "morality and justice" gobbledygook the fendas spread, the better.

[Fauxia]

I'm surprised some very outspoken defenders haven't discussed this yet. Oh well, the less "morality and justice" gobbledygook the fendas spread, the better.

Moralist defenders generally don’t support giving raiders unnecessary publicity... especially when badly written

[Union of Caplis]

I'm surprised some very outspoken defenders haven't discussed this yet. Oh well, the less "morality and justice" gobbledygook the fendas spread, the better.

Moralist defenders generally don’t support giving raiders unnecessary publicity... especially when badly written

I thank you for your comments, but I disagree.

[Sarakart]

This resolution could have fundamentally used a better argument as to why condemnations can still be useful. I can certainly see arguments in that fashion, but this resolution doesn't pursue them. It merely acknolwedges that condemnations have failed to "do their work" for The Black Hawks and then keeps on going anyways.

[Union of Caplis]

This resolution could have fundamentally used a better argument as to why condemnations can still be useful. I can certainly see arguments in that fashion, but this resolution doesn't pursue them. It merely acknolwedges that condemnations have failed to "do their work" for The Black Hawks and then keeps on going anyways.

I understand. It was my first time writing a resolution, but I am open to suggestions the next time. I was unaware that people discussed resolutions here until after I submitted my proposal.

[Fauxia]

Moralist defenders generally don’t support giving raiders unnecessary publicity... especially when badly written

I thank you for your comments, but I disagree.

Why?

[Lord Dominator]

This resolution could have fundamentally used a better argument as to why condemnations can still be useful. I can certainly see arguments in that fashion, but this resolution doesn't pursue them. It merely acknolwedges that condemnations have failed to "do their work" for The Black Hawks and then keeps on going anyways.

I understand. It was my first time writing a resolution, but I am open to suggestions the next time. I was unaware that people discussed resolutions here until after I submitted my proposal.

The more you know!
Also, as much as we in TBH may joke around about getting a third Condemnation, we're probably pretty good with just the two right now.

[Crionadh]

This seriously reached vote? Against. Its nothing but a badge of honor to raiders and TBH already has two.

So... what do these condemnations do? Anything? Are they just a means of basically telling a Region, "You've been a bad boy?" Is there a limit or some type of administrative action after a Region has been given a certain amount of condemnations or reprimands? Are they just allowed to keep going on with business and usual?

Perhaps there should be a proposition put before the Security Council mandating the number of warnings, condemnations or reprimands a region may acquire, before action is taken. What action? As an example: Three condemnations and your region is forfeit and closed down by the administrators. Currently, as you put it, a condemnation is nothing but a badge of honor. Perhaps if there were certain consequences associated with it, things might be a little different?

This, exactly this.

[Naginii]

…What would you propose as a better alternative?

It's already been offered-up by an avowed former defender: boot 'em out. You have the power, use it.

Raiding, for all the calls of it being "evil," is a legal part of the game. This is a geopolitical simulation and conflict is part of that. Peace is earned by keeping conflict at bay — just like in the real world.

So, don't allow yourself to be a target. Build strong alliances and even stronger delegate support. Find a way to keep your regional officers active, keep the region active, informed, engaged. An active region is an intact one. A passive, disinterested region is an easily raided one.

Tagging the 'Hawks with another badge is a nice gesture, and they'll love it, but it'll do nothing to improve your regional security.

Get active and stay active.
Best advice.

Oh and:

So... what do these condemnations do? Anything? Are they just a means of basically telling a Region, "You've been a bad boy?" Is there a limit or some type of administrative action after a Region has been given a certain amount of condemnations or reprimands? Are they just allowed to keep going on with business and usual?

Perhaps there should be a proposition put before the Security Council mandating the number of warnings, condemnations or reprimands a region may acquire, before action is taken. What action? As an example: Three condemnations and your region is forfeit and closed down by the administrators. Currently, as you put it, a condemnation is nothing but a badge of honor. Perhaps if there were certain consequences associated with it, things might be a little different?

This, exactly this.

Nope. Condemnations, as I've understood them, were never intended to be legally actionable no matter how many times a nation got badged/branded. You need egregious rule violations by native nations to get regional execution.

[Renegalle]

Well if you read further, you would see that I had stated that this is a statement of an opposing stance that should override how the region sees the condemnation.

You're trying to reward the Black Hawks by condemning them, no matter how meta you're trying to go here to cover that up. You're actively working in their favor. That is an indisputable fact. The only result of this condemnation passing would be a few happy Black Hawks. That is counter-productive, even in comparison to previous SC resolutions.

The best step of action, then, may be to repeal their previous condemnations on account of them viewing them as badges of honor. In fact, if we do that and manage to get all of their condemnations repealed, their significance may wane.

[Lord Dominator]

You're trying to reward the Black Hawks by condemning them, no matter how meta you're trying to go here to cover that up. You're actively working in their favor. That is an indisputable fact. The only result of this condemnation passing would be a few happy Black Hawks. That is counter-productive, even in comparison to previous SC resolutions.

The best step of action, then, may be to repeal their previous condemnations on account of them viewing them as badges of honor. In fact, if we do that and manage to get all of their condemnations repealed, their significance may wane.

We're not about to stop doing anything if you take our shinies away. And I wish you horrible luck (not that you'll need it) getting them repealed.

[Civitatem Mundus]

CAnt vote yet but I’m shocked by the current polls. This group has been named twice, and now are on the board of condemnation for their ruthless behavior. Behavior like this should not be tolerated. Hostile regions that cannot first try to approach a diplomatic solution have no place among the civilized.

[Bahaplains]

maybe we shouldn't try to ban the black hawks but try and reason with them. they could just be doing this to prove some kind of point. never has violence helped to defeat violence.

[Sarakart]

maybe we shouldn't try to ban the black hawks but try and reason with them. they could just be doing this to prove some kind of point. never has violence helped to defeat violence.

I don't think you understand that the entire point of The Black Hawks is to act as a military organization. You can reason with them, sure. You can also reason with a landmine, but it won't make you any less dead when you step on it.

[Jar Wattinree]

maybe we shouldn't try to ban the black hawks but try and reason with them. they could just be doing this to prove some kind of point. never has violence helped to defeat violence.

I don't think you understand that the entire point of The Black Hawks is to act as a military organization. You can reason with them, sure. You can also reason with a landmine, but it won't make you any less dead when you step on it.

I'd like to make that into a sig, but my sig already is full of stuff so I'll put it a factbook somewhere and forget about it.

[Lord Dominator]

maybe we shouldn't try to ban the black hawks but try and reason with them. they could just be doing this to prove some kind of point. never has violence helped to defeat violence.

I don't think you understand that the entire point of The Black Hawks is to act as a military organization. You can reason with them, sure. You can also reason with a landmine, but it won't make you any less dead when you step on it.

This is an amazing quote