[DRAFT] Repeal: "Condemn the Black Hawks"

[Outer Sparta]

Not a particularly good attitude for an author.

Sure, but I'd like actual feedback.

If your feedback says that your proposal isn't up to standard or that it's filled with filler, that's still actual feedback.

[Minskiev]

Sure, but I'd like actual feedback.

If your feedback says that your proposal isn't up to standard or that it's filled with filler, that's still actual feedback.

I'm talking about the "what comes next". I've stated clearly that this repeal has no psychological IC defender victory intentions. It's purely quality-based. Thanks for dealing with me while I'm being rude, but I just want to make sure that I'll be ready to submit this, and not wait for an entire convo to boil over before receiving feedback about how my proposal can be improved.

[Varanius]

Compared to other attempts to repeal this Condemnation, this draft actually produces some reasonable arguments for its removal.

However, SC#52 does fall into that class of resolutions I think of as low hanging fruit. Yes, it’s not well written, is too general in its description of Condemnable actions, but its not exceptionally bad and no worse than many of its contemporaries.

Do TBH deserve two badges? My opinion is yes, whatever the state of play is at the moment. So, no support from me.

Tbh I think one is enough. TBH have a history of raiding many regions (escpecially those that are my embassies and allies) and wear their condemnations with pride (the so many evil things TBH has done). But hey it my opinion yk.

Sounds like they should be commended then.

[Minskiev]

Bump. I plan to submit soon-ish.

[Minskiev]

Hm. Last bump, then.

[Cormactopia Prime]

The Black Hawks gave gameplay a lot of exciting activity, and now the region (along with much of gameplay) is dead. Leave their badges alone.

[Great Algerstonia]

The Black Hawks gave gameplay a lot of exciting activity, and now the region (along with much of gameplay) is dead. Leave their badges alone.

Ain't that a good reason to remove them? Condemnations, much like commendations, should be repealed when the target is no longer worthy and this has happened several times in NationStates history.

[Giovanniland]

The Black Hawks gave gameplay a lot of exciting activity, and now the region (along with much of gameplay) is dead. Leave their badges alone.

Ain't that a good reason to remove them? Condemnations, much like commendations, should be repealed when the target is no longer worthy and this has happened several times in NationStates history.

Except that inactivity does not make the target "no longer worthy." If that were the case, regions like Atlantic and Gatesville wouldn't have earned their condemnations, since both were awarded long after they ceased their operations. Nevertheless, they passed: and that's because their historical impact on NS is significant and of course worthy of recognition.

[Great Algerstonia]

Ain't that a good reason to remove them? Condemnations, much like commendations, should be repealed when the target is no longer worthy and this has happened several times in NationStates history.

Except that inactivity does not make the target "no longer worthy." If that were the case, regions like Atlantic and Gatesville wouldn't have earned their condemnations, since both were awarded long after they ceased their operations. Nevertheless, they passed: and that's because their historical impact on NS is significant and of course worthy of recognition.

I stand corrected, then.

[Minskiev]

The Black Hawks gave gameplay a lot of exciting activity, and now the region (along with much of gameplay) is dead. Leave their badges alone.

Oh, alright then. Shelving this proposal. I'm sorry, O great Cormactopia Prime. I hope you can forgive me.

[RiderSyl]

Someone's quickly on their way to becoming an "Against due to Author".

[The Python]

Someone's quickly on their way to becoming an "Against due to Author".

"Against due to Author" is generally extremely silly thinking as unless the author is, like, blacklisted/fascist or OOC problematic, that thinking just comes down to a personal vendetta.

[Hulldom]

Someone's quickly on their way to becoming an "Against due to Author".

"Against due to Author" is generally extremely silly thinking as unless the author is, like, blacklisted/fascist or OOC problematic, that thinking just comes down to a personal vendetta.

And the notion you'll ever stop those is frankly just wishful thinking.

[RiderSyl]

Someone's quickly on their way to becoming an "Against due to Author".

"Against due to Author" is generally extremely silly thinking as unless the author is, like, blacklisted/fascist or OOC problematic, that thinking just comes down to a personal vendetta.

I assume you saw my post and thought 'Hey, I resemble that remark!'

Look, it's always better for people to like you so that they actually want to vote for your stuff, rather than being so combative that you become someone whose proposals are voted against because of your name.

It's not a vendetta to say "I don't like this author" and vote against. It's the voters acting on preference. What's extremely silly is putting off voters with your attitude, then blaming the voters for not liking you.

[Minskiev]

Someone's quickly on their way to becoming an "Against due to Author".

Fun.

[RiderSyl]

Someone's quickly on their way to becoming an "Against due to Author".

Fun.

Just crank down the belligerence and you'll be fine. Less "in an argument in NSGP" you, more "doing friendly PR for TRR" you.

[Minskiev]

Fun.

Just crank down the belligerence and you'll be fine. Less "in an argument in NSGP" you, more "doing friendly PR for TRR" you.

Am I being belligerent? I didn't think I was...

[The Python]

I assume you saw my post and thought 'Hey, I resemble that remark!' :p

Very petty attempt at a snipe?

It's not a vendetta to say "I don't like this author" and vote against. It's the voters acting on preference.

Acting on a preference that is because of a vendetta.

When someone drafts a proposal that is good and deserves to pass, then they have put a lot of effort into it, and deserve the recognition of having written a passed resolution. Denying people that recognition just because you don't like the author even for the silliest of reasons (including maybe just using a single snipe in their drafting thread) is certainly a "vendetta"; the only times voting against because of the author is acceptable is if they are an OOC problem/blacklisted/fascist etc.. Furthermore, the fact that the author wrote it doesn't necessarily mean that said proposal must be a bad one, and thus the WA would benefit from said proposal passing. The WA is designed to pass good legislation, not to be a popularity contest for authors.

What's extremely silly is putting off voters with your attitude, then blaming the voters for not liking you.

And no, if someone has a bad attitude in their proposal thread(s), the author not necessarily being liked is obviously going to be natural. What is silly is people voting against the proposal just because they dislike the author.

[Honeydewistania]

Python, you’re talking complete nonsense.

[WayNeacTia]

Just crank down the belligerence and you'll be fine. Less "in an argument in NSGP" you, more "doing friendly PR for TRR" you.

Am I being belligerent? I didn't think I was...

Tone down the snark and people may rethink their positions? Just spitballing.......

I assume you saw my post and thought 'Hey, I resemble that remark!'

Pretty bad attempt at a snipe?

Actually it was a very good one.

It's not a vendetta to say "I don't like this author" and vote against. It's the voters acting on preference.

Acting on a preference that is because of a vendetta.

When someone drafts a proposal that is good and deserves to pass, then they have put a lot of effort into it, and deserve the recognition of having written a passed resolution. Denying people that recognition just because you don't like the author even for the silliest of reasons (including maybe just using a single snipe in their drafting thread) is certainly a "vendetta"; the only times voting against because of the author is acceptable is if they are an OOC problem/blacklisted/fascist etc.. Furthermore, the fact that the author wrote it doesn't necessarily mean that said proposal must be a bad one, and thus the WA would benefit from said proposal passing. The WA is designed to pass good legislation, not to be a popularity contest for authors.

Tough shit Sunshine. This is a political game, not Hello Kitty Island. You either learn how to play politics, or you get left in the dust. I refuse to vote for something because someone put a lot of work into it, if it is shit. This draft is that, shit. None of the arguments are even remotely convincing, other that the Hawks aren't active anymore so we should repeal their badges. Not going to cut it.

What's extremely silly is putting off voters with your attitude, then blaming the voters for not liking you.

And no, if someone has a bad attitude in their proposal thread(s), the author not necessarily being liked is obviously going to be natural. What is silly is people voting against the proposal just because they dislike the author.

Seems like a very good reason to vote against something if you ask me. You will find a good majority of people hold this belief. As I said, this is politics.

[RiderSyl]

Just crank down the belligerence and you'll be fine. Less "in an argument in NSGP" you, more "doing friendly PR for TRR" you.

Am I being belligerent? I didn't think I was...

I was being a bitch with how I phrased it, but now I'd like to make sure you know it's constructive criticism. Honestly, you were being belligerent, and I'm not the only one that saw your behavior in this thread as... not great. Just try to roll with the punches next time. It's tough when you're getting a lot of opposition, trust me I know, but when you're authoring a draft, try to stay above the typical rabblerousing.

Python, I had a big reply typed out to you, but I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole (snake burrow?) with you tonight, as I feel like we might be on the verge of threadjacking.

[Outer Sparta]

There were points raised by others, not just Rider and Wayne, about the author's attitude in asking for advice. If people tell you your draft is full of filler and you don't make the necessary changes, then that's not good.

[Cormactopia Prime]

The Black Hawks gave gameplay a lot of exciting activity, and now the region (along with much of gameplay) is dead. Leave their badges alone.

Oh, alright then. Shelving this proposal. I'm sorry, O great Cormactopia Prime. I hope you can forgive me.

Is your attitude always this lousy? Syl has been right in her warnings; I'm mostly retired, but I'll be sure to make a point to log in and vote against anything you author whenever I notice it's up for vote. This much attitude because people don't like your fluff, filler proposal to repeal a deserved condemnation of a region that has contributed years worth of activity to gameplay is just totally uncalled for and is undermining not only this proposal, but all proposals you author.

If you don't want to hear "voting against your fluff proposal," don't write fluff proposals. If you want to go for an easy badge, don't try to go for The Black Hawks' condemnation. I see from your other current proposal that you're a fan of going for the low hanging fruit, and I'm sure you think with The Black Hawks in disfavor with so many major gameplay regions right now their condemnation is low hanging fruit you can convert into a nice, warm badge pie, but don't be surprised when people call you on it. The Black Hawks have actually contributed something to gameplay; your fluff proposals aren't contributing anything of value to anything.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

The Black Hawks gave gameplay a lot of exciting activity, and now the region (along with much of gameplay) is dead. Leave their badges alone.

Oh, alright then. Shelving this proposal. I'm sorry, O great Cormactopia Prime. I hope you can forgive me.

Cormac made a valid and polite point about TBH and their Condemnation and you snark back? Pro-tip: leave the snark to those who can do it well, you just sound petulant.

[Tinhampton]

Oh, alright then. Shelving this proposal. I'm sorry, O great Cormactopia Prime. I hope you can forgive me.

Cormac made a valid and polite point about TBH and their Condemnation and you snark back? Pro-tip: leave the snark to those who can do it well, you just sound petulant.

I wish to reiterate that the first letters of each of the clauses literally spell out TBH IS DEAD.