[DEFEATED] Repeal Condemn The Black Hawks (SC#52)

[Goobergunchia]

The World Assembly,

Noting The Black Hawks' long and notorious history of flagrant violations of the national sovereignty of regions, which has been addressed in Security Council Resolution #217 "Condemn The Black Hawks",

Asserting that Security Council Resolution #52, also named "Condemn The Black Hawks", is a poorly written resolution that makes hardly any case for condemnation — let alone two — of The Black Hawks, and should be repealed in order to maintain the high standards of this distinguished body,

Dumbfounded by the extreme vagueness on display in SC#52, which undermines the resolution's effectiveness in presenting The Black Hawks as a threat to society by failing to include any region raided or targeted by The Black Hawks or any significant operation undertaken therein, a distinction that was even made by Security Council Resolution #1 "Condemn Macedon", a resolution that has since been repealed for its subpar writing,

Believing that attention-seeking practices such as drafting a "self-commendation" are not noteworthy enough to warrant condemnation from the Security Council and should be ignored,

Observing that SC#52 cites "hundreds of regions" having been raided by The Black Hawks, when in reality they were likely the mostly harmless and easily reversible "tag raids" which only affect the outward appearance of a region and its embassies, and do not usually involve "regional bans to permanently exert their control",

Recognising that since all resolutions, regardless of whether they have been repealed, are stored in an accessible database for all to peruse, SC#52’s standing as a supposedly "historically significant" resolution would not be notably diminished or forgotten as a result of its repeal,

Further recognising that no "history" of The Black Hawks’ heinous raiding activities from before 2011 would be erased as a result of a repeal, as the complete lack of details of such activities renders SC#52 completely useless in garnering any significant knowledge of The Black Hawks’ raiding from that time period,

Understanding that a new type of resolution in the Security Council, the "declaration", has been established for the Security Council to express its opinions on certain matters, and believing that a declaration would be better to ‘condemn raiding’ than a poorly written condemnation from over a decade ago,

Further believing that whilst some claim that The Black Hawks are deserving of two condemnations due to the scope of their dastardly deeds, SC#52 does a very poor job in capturing the notoriety of The Black Hawks, and that if The Black Hawks are indeed found to be worthy of two Security Council condemnations they should be recognised with a resolution that adequately details the heinous activities that they have engaged in throughout the years,

Concluding that SC#52, which utterly fails in presenting The Black Hawks as a region deserving of condemnation, should therefore be repealed, hereby:

Repeals Security Council Resolution #52, "Condemn The Black Hawks".

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

*sighs wearily*

Oh no, not again.

[Vleerian]

Rebuking the following claims and talking points constantly recycled whenever a repeal of SC#52 is proposed:

• "SC#52 is of important historical significance as a condemnation of raiding and thus should not be repealed". As repealing a resolution does not delete all records of it, SC#52 will continue to be viewable to those interested in "history". In addition, a "condemnation" of raiding can now be achieved using the much more suitable declaration proposal of the Security Council, so anyone interested in condemning raiding as a practice can use those avenues instead of relying on the poorly written SC#52,
• "SC#217 does not ‘replace’ SC#52, as the two resolutions complement each other by covering two different time periods, repealing SC#52 would erase The Black Hawks’ actions from before 2011". There is simply no ‘history’ that can be erased by a repeal of SC#52, as its lack of details renders it completely useless in gaining a good amount of knowledge of The Black Hawks’ activities from back then,
• "The Black Hawks are so evil, they deserve two badges!" Even if this is true, SC#52 does a very poor job in capturing the notoriety of The Black Hawks’ numerous crimes, making it only "two condemnations" in terms of shiny badges. Those interested in seeing The Black Hawks with two condemnations for whatever reason would be better off supporting a proposal that adequately details the heinous activities that The Black Hawks have engaged in throughout the years,

More out of curiosity than any else, is there a precedent in the SC for pre-empting criticisms in this way?

[Malphe II]

Wonder how many of these we're going to get.

The text is a weirdly infornal dog's breakfast, it reads really disjointedly with no concise argument? Countering arguments in clause is also very unusual.

[Honeydewistania]

Wonder how many of these we're going to get.

The text is a weirdly infornal dog's breakfast, it reads really disjointedly with no concise argument? Countering arguments in clause is also very unusual.

What part of the argument is too unclear? Also I included the counter arguments since they come up so often, but if it’s too much of an issue I can move it from the actual proposal to just the OP.

[Minskiev]

Support. And, to raiders gripping onto whatever "abnormity" they can find to defend SC#52, it doesn't matter if it isn't "precedent" to have a rebuttal in your repeal. Argumentative essays feature rebuttals all the time, and repeals are essentially argumentative essays in an SC format.

[Vleerian]

And, to raiders gripping onto whatever "abnormity" they can find to defend SC#52, it doesn't matter if it isn't "precedent" to have a rebuttal in your repeal. Argumentative essays feature rebuttals all the time, and repeals are essentially argumentative essays in an SC format.

I can't speak for Malphe, but I was merely genuinely curious as I hadn't seen it before - and the tone of my question was tepid at best. If it came off as trying to discredit the proposal that was not my intention.

[Tinhampton]

I support (and have always supported, even before the recent repeal craze) all resolutions of this title

[Fachumonn]

Only if we add another commendation for IA

No, goofiness aside, support.

[Malphe II]

And, to raiders gripping onto whatever "abnormity" they can find to defend SC#52, it doesn't matter if it isn't "precedent" to have a rebuttal in your repeal. Argumentative essays feature rebuttals all the time, and repeals are essentially argumentative essays in an SC format.

I can't speak for Malphe, but I was merely genuinely curious as I hadn't seen it before - and the tone of my question was tepid at best. If it came off as trying to discredit the proposal that was not my intention.

Okay so initially I was pretty prejudiced towards it because I interpreted it as the vanguard of a repeal craze, but now that I actually read through the old TBH condemn if there's any proposal that does warrant a repeal for poor writing it's definitely this, I'm surprised it's lasted this long. This doesn't warrant refusal out of hand, & I think there are solid arguments here that just need to be more eloquently communicated in the text.

The World Assembly,

Noting that The Black Hawks are notorious for their flagrant violations of the national sovereignty of regions throughout their long history, which has been addressed in Security Council Resolution #217 "Condemn The Black Hawks",

Understanding that Security Council Resolution #52, also named "Condemn The Black Hawks", is a to be a poorly written resolution that makeshardly any case for the condemnation, let alone the second condemnation, of The Black Hawks, a poor case for the condemnation of The Black Hawks and should be repealed in order to maintain the high standards of this distinguished body,

Edited the first clause to be more concise about the whole <the second condemn is sufficient> argument

The second clause was very runoff-y, so I've cleaned it up to be more readable.

Dumbfounded Disturbed by the extreme vagueness on display in of SC#52, which undermines the resolution’s effectiveness in presenting The Black Hawks as a threat to society, such as by not naming any region that had been raided or targeted by The Black Hawks, or the names of any significant operation undertaken by The Black Hawks, a distinction that was even made by Security Council Resolution #1 "Condemn Macedon", a resolution that has since been repealed for its subpar writing,

Understanding this ambiguity to fall short of the precedent set by Security Council Resolution #271, wherein the similarly poorly written Security Council Resolution #1 "Condemn Macedon" was repealed on lesser grounds,

Polished up some of the wording and refused some commas that messed with the flow of the clause. The Macedon argument is actually very solid as a call to past precedence so I've moved that to a new clause, highkey if you can think of other repeals made on those grounds besides Macedon it would make the argument even stronger.

The text of the macedon repeal could also be useful if you want to further elaborate on it, given it establishes very clear precedent for ambiguous/poorly written proposals to be repealed in favour of newer better ones. TBH already has a better one, feels like a strong talking point.

Observing that SC#52 cites "hundreds of regions" having been raided by The Black Hawks, when in reality they were likely the mostly harmless and easily reversible "tag raids", which only affect the outward appearance of a region and its embassies, and do not usually involve "regional bans to permanently exert their control",

This needs to be looked at by someone with a better understanding of raiding history, I don't know how many tags were even done by TBH at the time of passing in April 2011, might not be a valid argument.

Detesting the anti-democratic raiding conducted to disrupt World Assembly proposals by The Black Hawks which they still participate in to this day, but considering that since such practices have proven to be largely ineffective in having a "cooling effect" on the World Assembly, as Observing that the speculated cooling effect on World Assembly duties due to raider activity has not occurred to a significant extent, visible in that many proposals supposedly targeted by these practices (including SC#52 itself) have eventually passed, it is not condemnable in this context, and ergo surmising there to be no condemnable activity,

This one felt awkwardly worded in general, rewrote it to be a lot more clear about the actual argument.

EDIT: changed edits to the first clause.

[Cheesy Tots]

Overall support for this. The Rebuking clause gives a lot of great reasons as to why, and personally while I don't mind TBH having two condemns, I certainly think that in such a case both should be well-written. As the resolution states, if TBH is worthy of two condemns, then someone who isn't in TBH should write a replacement that is better written and can tell way more about TBH's early years than SC#52 does. As it is, SC#52 is practically just a badge with fluff behind it.

Agreed with most of Malphe's feedback, although the first clause would need more grammatical edits to fit in Malphe's feedback, I think.

But I disagree with Malphe's feedback on the Macedon argument, or at least wish to note its a different line of argumentation than in your current draft. In your draft, Macedon is more mentioned to show that even SC #1 had some examples of operations and yet was repealed, and SC #52 has no operation examples and therefore is even more deserving of a repeal. Malphe's feedback removes that beneficial detail. I do agree with Malphe though that adding in more examples of precedent of such repeals of regional condemns - if there are some - would be excellent.

[Honeydewistania]

Thanks for the feedback! I’ll look at them later and try to incorporate them.

[Lord Dominator]

and can tell way more about TBH's early years than SC#52 does. As it is, SC#52 is practically just a badge with fluff behind it.

Certainly be easier if that history wasn’t largely contained in the minds of DoS players as best I can tell…

Edit: And granted, a few generally inactive others.

[Twertis]

The "rebuking" clause sounds like you're arguing in a forum thread, especially given the colloquially language. I don't think it's necessary. Rather, it ruins the tone of the otherwise decent draft.

Also, why do people keep bringing this up? Why do people care specifically about one of dozens of poorly-written old resolutions?

[Quebecshire]

I don't have a problem with the rebuking clause. If anything, I find it a bit refreshing. Full support, based as fuck draft, Whatermelons!

[Honeydewistania]

The "rebuking" clause sounds like you're arguing in a forum thread, especially given the colloquially language. I don't think it's necessary. Rather, it ruins the tone of the otherwise decent draft.

Also, why do people keep bringing this up? Why do people care specifically about one of dozens of poorly-written old resolutions?

Is the issue with the tone or the content of the clause?

Also, I don't have that much free time to repeal all the ancient bad resolutions one at a time dude!

[Twertis]

The "rebuking" clause sounds like you're arguing in a forum thread, especially given the colloquially language. I don't think it's necessary. Rather, it ruins the tone of the otherwise decent draft.

Also, why do people keep bringing this up? Why do people care specifically about one of dozens of poorly-written old resolutions?

Is the issue with the tone or the content of the clause?

Also, I don't have that much free time to repeal all the ancient bad resolutions one at a time dude!

I definitely don't like the tone, and I don't like that it's a direct response. I think it would work to lay out a stance that indirectly rebukes those points, but there's also no reason to outside of the forum thread. The people interested enough in the specific back-and-forth will read the argument in the thread.

[Guess and Check]

I don't have a problem with the rebuking clause. If anything, I find it a bit refreshing. Full support, based as fuck draft, Whatermelons!

Agreed with this.

[Thousand Branches]

Short resolution, somewhat short edits.

Noting that The Black Hawks are notorious for their flagrant violations of the national sovereignty of regions throughout their long history, which has been addressed in Security Council Resolution #217 "Condemn The Black Hawks",

Rewrite but all organizational stuff:

"Noting The Black Hawks' long and notorious history of flagrant violations to the national sovereignty of regions, which has been addressed in Security Council Resolution #217 "Condemn The Black Hawks","

Understanding that Security Council Resolution #52, also named "Condemn The Black Hawks", is a poorly written resolution that makes hardly any case for the condemnation, let alone the second condemnation, of The Black Hawks, and should be repealed in order to maintain the high standards of this distinguished body,

"the condemnation" --> "condemnation"

"the second condemnation," --> "two condemnations"

Dumbfounded by the extreme vagueness on display in SC#52, which undermine the resolution’s effectiveness in presenting The Black Hawks as a threat to society, such as by not naming any region that had been raided or targeted by The Black Hawks, or the names of any significant operation undertaken by The Black Hawks, a distinction that was even made by Security Council Resolution #1 "Condemn Macedon", a resolution that has since been repealed for its subpar writing,

Rewrite for some significant organizational stuff:

"Dumbfounded by the extreme vagueness on display in SC#52, undermining the resolution's effectiveness in presenting The Black Hawks as a threat to society by failing to include any region raided or targeted by The Black Hawks or any significant operation undertaken therein, a distinction that was even made by Security Council Resolution #1 "Condemn Macedon", a resolution that has since been repealed for its subpar writing,"

Believing that attention-seeking practices, such as drafting a "self-commendation", should be ignored by the Security Council and are not noteworthy or evil enough to be considered worthy of condemnation,

Delete the commas after "practices" and ""self-commendation"".

I think "should be ignored by the Security Council and" is pretty unnecessary and clunky. If anything I would swap the order of that and the noteworthy/evil bit.

Observing that SC#52 cites "hundreds of regions" having been raided by The Black Hawks, when in reality they were likely the mostly harmless and easily reversible "tag raids", which only affect the outward appearance of a region and its embassies, and do not usually involve "regional bans to permanently exert their control",

Comma before "which only" should be nixed. If done, that which should be a that.

Detesting the anti-democratic raiding conducted to disrupt World Assembly proposals by The Black Hawks which they still participate in to this day, but considering that since such practices have proven to be largely ineffective in having a "cooling effect" on the World Assembly, as many proposals supposedly targeted by these practices (including SC#52 itself) have eventually passed, it is not condemnable in this context,

This clause is pretty clunky and honestly rather confusing as well. I assume it is referencing quorum raiding but if so that should be made clearer. I would try and rework this one.

Rebuking the following claims and talking points constantly recycled whenever a repeal of SC#52 is proposed:

Odd way to go about this but I suppose it works.

"SC#52 is of important historical significance as a condemnation of raiding and thus should not be repealed". As repealing a resolution does not delete all records of it, SC#52 will continue to be viewable to those interested in "history". In addition, a "condemnation" of raiding can now be achieved using the much more suitable declaration proposal of the Security Council, so anyone interested in condemning raiding as a practice can use those avenues instead of relying on the poorly written SC#52,

There should be a better separation between the quoted claims and the rebuttals against them. Perhaps a colon or an em dash or a bold on the quotes?

That being said, the rest of this clause is solid.

"SC#217 does not ‘replace’ SC#52, as the two resolutions complement each other by covering two different time periods, repealing SC#52 would erase The Black Hawks’ actions from before 2011". There is simply no ‘history’ that can be erased by a repeal of SC#52, as its lack of details renders it completely useless in gaining a good amount of knowledge of The Black Hawks’ activities from back then,

The supposed claim should either have a period and subsequent capitalization at the end of "periods" or a semicolon therein.

"gaining a good amount of" --> "garnering any significant"

"from back then" could be something like "circa 2011" (or whatever the year was) if you wanted to.

"The Black Hawks are so evil, they deserve two badges!" Even if this is true, SC#52 does a very poor job in capturing the notoriety of The Black Hawks’ numerous crimes, making it only "two condemnations" in terms of shiny badges. Those interested in seeing The Black Hawks with two condemnations for whatever reason would be better off supporting a proposal that adequately details the heinous activities that The Black Hawks have engaged in throughout the years,

"for whatever reason" is unnecessary, feels like more of a personal dig than a solid rebuttal.

Not a huge fan of "shiny badges"? Feels off the actual vibe of condemnations in an IC fashion.

"that" before "The Black Hawks" can be nixed.

Concluding that SC#52 utterly fails in presenting The Black Hawks as a region deserving of condemnation, and should finally be repealed, hereby:

"should finally be repealed" --> "it should therefore be finally repealed"

Done! Hope they were helpful, have a splendid day,

-A

[Honeydewistania]

They were helpful, and I will have a splendid day! Thanks

[Honeydewistania]

Alright, finally edited. What do you folks think of it now?

[Team Leo]

Fuck no. TBH deserves their condemnation. Honey, how dare YOU propose this!? This is taking away part of their glory and accomplishments!

[RiderSyl]

If the Security Council moves forth in erasing the recognition of a major faction of gameplay, well, that major faction has already shown its willingness to simply opt out of the space and let it rot.

So, I ask those of you supporting this draft and others like it... Will the short-term thrill be worth what you turn the SC into?

[Honeydewistania]

If the Security Council moves forth in erasing the recognition of a major faction of gameplay, well, that major faction has already shown its willingness to simply opt out of the space and let it rot.

So, I ask those of you supporting this draft and others like it... Will the short-term thrill be worth what you turn the SC into?

I disagree that anything will be ‘erased’. TBH will still have a second badge and be easily found by searching in the ‘condemned’ region tags for everyone to see, unless someone proposes a repeal to that as well which will be extremely unlikely. And as I already argued in my proposal, there is hardly anything that is being recognised by SC#52. If you want to see TBH get recognised, a proposal to condemn them that lists their misdeeds in full glory would be better than continuing to latch onto this.

[RiderSyl]

If the Security Council moves forth in erasing the recognition of a major faction of gameplay, well, that major faction has already shown its willingness to simply opt out of the space and let it rot.

So, I ask those of you supporting this draft and others like it... Will the short-term thrill be worth what you turn the SC into?

I disagree that anything will be ‘erased’. TBH will still have a second badge and be easily found by searching in the ‘condemned’ region tags for everyone to see, unless someone proposes a repeal to that as well which will be extremely unlikely. And as I already argued in my proposal, there is hardly anything that is being recognised by SC#52. If you want to see TBH get recognised, a proposal to condemn them that lists their misdeeds in full glory would be better than continuing to latch onto this.

As you say yourself, TBH has a Condemn that already lists their misdeeds in full glory. They've had two Condemns for a long while due to the fact SC#52 does not document their achievements as it should. However, SC#52 has stood up to past repeal attempts because of its historical significance and the lesser writing standards of the era in which it was passed (11 years ago). The arguments for repeal that you present were shot down before by other authors. What has changed to make this previously untouchable and historic Condemn seem weak enough that such a well-crafted draft is targeting it?

Well, I know that the raiding/defending sphere currently contains an IC effort to erase significant achievements of raiders - an effort that is supported by Madjack (Delegate of The North Pacific, controls largest voting power) & Quebecshire (head of The League, and the League Defense Force). So, I'm sorry, Honeydew, but I'm not in the state of mind to see the timing of this as just a coincidental concern-driven clean-up of old proposals.