[PASSED] Repeal Condemn Jakker

[Sedgistan]

Bit more verbose than Dom's proposal but got permission from Dom to handle repealing Jakker's condemn -

The Security Council,

Acknowledging the existence of SCR#112 "Condemn Jakker", a resolution which denounced the actions of a longtime member of The Black Hawks for sowing chaos all over the world through numerous invasions,

Noting however that on January 27 2022, The Black Hawks, committed to protecting their own members from harm, banished Jakker from the region and removed all privileges the nation held. Jakker would cease to exist within 48 hours of this impromptu exile, wiped out with their leader prevented from founding another nation ever again,

Believing that with Jakker now having ceased to exist, they no longer remain "a threat to world-wide peace and sovereignty of many regions" as claimed by SCR#112,

Regretting even the necessity of this resolution in the first place,

Hereby repeals SCR#112 "Condemn Jakker".

[Sedgistan]

This needs an additional sentence in it to avoid a Rule 1b violation (addressing the contents of the resolution it's repealing). Your first clause just restates the contents of the Condemnation, the other three cover subsequent developments.

The obvious line would be something like "given Jakker no longer exists, it is no longer a threat" (a reference to the "UTTERLY CONVINCED that Jakker is a threat to world-wide peace and sovereignty of many regions," line of the Condemnation") -- but I don't think anyone wants to write that Jakker is not a threat. You do need something more to make this legal, though.

[Giovanniland]

I'm not sure if I really like this draft in comparison to LD's version: the "Asserting" and "Regretting" clauses mention Jakker's OOC actions in more detail (and frame it in an IC way) than LD's simple and short draft, with that one focusing on the in-game consequences.

[Honeydewistania]

Why do we need this when there’s already the other draft that works as well, if not better? I’m a bit confused

[WayNeacTia]

Why do we need this when there’s already the other draft that works as well, if not better? I’m a bit confused

We don’t. It is far to bloated. LD has the perfect draft as long as he ignores Apato’s suggestions.

[Dakota]

@ Sedge - added in the "believing" line, hopefully that should do.

@ Gio - removed the asserting & shortened the regretting clause. With this one went for trying to mimic Repeal Commend Solorni a bit while not being as long-winded there. While I doubt it matters much in the context of the SC, this was important to me to be able to try and handle the condemn repeal which is why I asked to take it over.

[Guess and Check]

Need to ask LD to close their own thread so there isn't confusion between the two drafts

reads fine to me for its purpose but nitpicks if you want them:

committed to protecting their own members from harm

grammar

Noting however that on January 27 2022, The Black Hawks, committed to protect their own members from harm, banished Jakker from the region and removed the nation's many privilegessubsequently removed all privileges the nation previously held. Jakker would cease to exist within 48 hours of this impromptu exile, wiped out withandtheir leader prevented from founding another nation ever again,

some suggestions

[Minskiev]

Sorry, Salem/Moon. There's no way in hell this needs to be co-authored. LD posted their draft first, oops.

Edit: Wow this aged poorly. Given more relevant info I support this, though unsure of Moon's co-authoring.

[Sedgistan]

The "believing" line covers things for Rule 1b. You're fine from a 3b perspective too.

[A Bloodred Moon]

Support, good luck on repealing this.

There really is only one minor thing I noticed:

Believing that with Jakker now ceasing to exist, they no longer remain "a threat to world-wide peace and sovereignty of many regions" as claimed by SCR#112,

Might wish to reword this as "having ceased to exist" or something similar, considering it now reads as if the nation is in the process of CTE'ing.

[Lord Dominator]

Need to ask LD to close their own thread so there isn't confusion between the two drafts

I would note I’ve said as much in mine

Support, generally tho

[Guess and Check]

Need to ask LD to close their own thread so there isn't confusion between the two drafts

I would note I’ve said as much in mine

Support, generally tho

Oop didnt notice, mb

[Emodea]

Wow this aged poorly. Given more relevant info I support this, though unsure of Moon's co-authoring.

I've got no problems stepping down from this if it goes through. I agreed to help Salem because this was important to him and he wanted some help, but I understand why this might be poorly recieved to some. I don't really care about badges or stuffs, so doesn't really matter to me whether I'm credited or not.

[Dawn Denac]

Just edited my post to be struck through since I can't delete or retract it.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Having caught up with LD’s comment in their thread about who should write this, I’m happy to support this one.

Reads well, not bloated. Gets the job done.

[Apatosaurus]

Looks good, full support

EDIT: I think "government" would work better than "leader" in "Noting", though that might just be me. "Resolution" may also be better than "proposal" in "Regretting" since in the almost certain event that this passes it wouldn't be a "proposal" anymore :P

[Unibot III]

OOC: Is “committed to protect their own members from harm” consistent with 3.b-c? I understand it has a vagueness that can be interpreted in different ways, but it sounds like it may be referencing a rules violation. Perhaps it is not a direct enough reference to engage those rules.

The grammar also seems funky around “exile, wiped out.” This might be a regional dialect?

Good luck!

[Free Algerstonia]

Opposed, this proposal is far too OOC and only serves to bring up uncomfortable questions that the admin team is unable to answer. There really isn't a need to bring attention to that, just bring up the CTE and the abrupt removal from the Council and the proposal is fine. I liked LD's a lot better.

[Dakota]

Thank you much for the recommended edits, edited the proposal and submitted it here.

[Apatosaurus]

Thank you much for the recommended edits, edited the proposal and submitted it here.

Best of luck!

[Mikeswill]

Opposed, this proposal is far too OOC and only serves to bring up uncomfortable questions that the admin team is unable to answer. There really isn't a need to bring attention to that, just bring up the CTE and the abrupt removal from the Council and the proposal is fine. I liked LD's a lot better.

I am of the opinion that this Repeal is in bad taste. The Nation has been eliminated for undisclosed reasons but apparently sufficient ones. But erasing historical gameplay out of a sense of righteousness does not fancy my palate.

[Grenartia]

I wish this had contained the "Jakker sees the condemnation as a badge of honor" language, to sell the necessity of the repeal to those who are unaware.

[One Small Island]

I am of the opinion that this Repeal is in bad taste. The Nation has been eliminated for undisclosed reasons but apparently sufficient ones. But erasing historical gameplay out of a sense of righteousness does not fancy my palate.

This is not really erasing the history. The original condemnation will remain visible to anyone who wants to view it, albeit crossed out, in the World Assembly archives.

[Grenartia]

I wish this had contained the "Jakker sees the condemnation as a badge of honor" language, to sell the necessity of the repeal to those who are unaware.

Actually, on further review, I think the present language is adequate.

[Warzone Codger]

Opposed, this proposal is far too OOC and only serves to bring up uncomfortable questions that the admin team is unable to answer. There really isn't a need to bring attention to that, just bring up the CTE and the abrupt removal from the Council and the proposal is fine. I liked LD's a lot better.

I disagree, the text of this proposal is vague enough that someone only reading the text ICly, without any context, could pretend we are repealing a raider's condemnation because he betrayed and tried to grief his own region.

I'm fully aware this is not the case and it's inappropriate to even put the two types of harm in this way, but it provides an out for us who really don't to think about the OOC issues.