[No Quorum] Repeal SC #52, Condemn The Black Hawks

[Jakker]

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.

[Falapatorius]

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.

Hmm.. perhaps repealing a 'badge of honor' (or not giving one in the first place) is the most effective condemnation, judging from the angst generated by it's possible repeal in this case.

[Jakker]

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.

Hmm.. perhaps repealing a 'badge of honor' (or not giving one in the first place) is the most effective condemnation, judging from the angst generated by it's possible repeal in this case.

The great thing is that regardless, TBH will continue to raid at high levels. I was simply pointing at the wrong points listed in the proposal. But I guess you need to find whatever win you can nowadays

[The Stalker]

For the record, I oppose any attempt to repeal either Condemnation. I wrote the second one to stand by the first, and #52 holds historical importance as outlined by Jakker. Personally any repeal attempt of an old resolution annoys me, their apart of NS history, and I see no reason to try and erase the past.

Furthermore the "poorly written" argument is nonsense. There were way different standards for the SC back in the day, probably the majority of the first 75 would be considered poorly written by today's standards, and six years from now the SC will have far different standards than we do today.

I don't really see this draft getting off the ground at any rate, but should a serious attempt to repeal either occur, I can promise you I will counter campaign it.

[New Dukaine]

Opposed. they deserve two, they get two.

[Lord Dominator]

Still against, and also wondering what you mean by unsportsmanlike.

Opposed. they deserve two, they get two.

Also a reason why I oppose.

[Abhichandra]

What does a condemnation even do to a region?

[Consular]

What does a condemnation even do to a region?

It puts a little "condemned" badge on their region page. In purely practical terms that's all.

[Small Huts]

Thanks for the history lesson, Jakkar. If you'll check my founding date you may infer that these details are not mysterious to me. The game has changed and continues to do so. I think it is time for this legislation and therefore I will put it forward. If it be not now, then soon I'll wager.

Lord Dominator, This is something which shifts with the sands much as that which Jakkar has swept aside for us (thanks again, Jakkar). My Region is independently aligned and so am I. I know what it is to raid and to defend. I do not subscribe to the false R/D dichotomy and the increasing number of independently aligned Nations, Regions and Coalitions may support my position. 'Sportsmanship' depends on the unique circumstances of each mission and there are few moral absolutes to it. Nations must decide for themselves where the line is drawn in each case as the vacillating interpretation is a trap I will not step in.

Abhichandra, the intent is "to express shock and dismay at a nation or region". That's all.

[Raionitu]

<_< >_> you submitted it as a condemnation, not a repeal. If it wasn't gonna pass before it certainly won't when it isn't even a repeal mechanically.

[The Stalker]

<_< >_> you submitted it as a condemnation, not a repeal. If it wasn't gonna pass before it certainly won't when it isn't even a repeal mechanically.

Approved.

[Small Huts]

Raionitu, the mistake has been amended.

Mallorea and Riva, I am compelled to state that this is my legislation and not a project from Equilism as a Region.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Mallorea and Riva, I am compelled to state that this is my legislation and not a project from Equilism as a Region.

That's fine, I'm just disappointed that an Equilism Delegate would wind up where you currently are.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I'm opposed to this, and I'll go full meta to explain why.

We really need to get beyond this "badge of honor" mentality in which we hesitate to give raiders the recognition they deserve through condemnations. If we limit the scope of condemnations to regions we actually find deplorable in a non-gameplay sense, where's the fun in that? Like everything else in NationStates, the Security Council should be fun, and condemnations should be fun ways to recognize the game's "bad guys" (both gameplay and roleplay "bad guys") -- not actual condemnations aimed at regions and nations we don't like because of actually deplorable behavior, which would be better off receiving no attention at all.

The Black Hawks deserve two condemnations. The first is historically important, not only to them but as a marker of their impact on NationStates at the time, and the second goes into more detail about their actual raids, coups, espionage, etc. Both are important. Both should be on the books. It's not unreasonable for a raider region that has existed and been as active as The Black Hawks to have two condemnations, and the unfortunate "badge of honor" mentality is the only reason for this hesitation.

[Cerian Quilor]

Plus, if we try arguing condemnations shouldn't, in some cases, be badges of honor, we'd have to go back and pull out all those roleplay condemnations that are usually given to people who did an excellent job of roleplaying brutal, evil nations.

[Consular]

not actual condemnations aimed at regions and nations we don't like because of actually deplorable behavior, which would be better off receiving no attention at all.

I agree with this sentiment.

TBH are classier than many invader groups so I don't mind recognising them as being good at being the bad guys.

[Small Huts]

Cormactopia Prime, I fully agree with the first part of your statement. We should not be considering whether the receiver wishes the Condemnation or not, we should be focussed on whether they deserve it. The corruption of purpose on the condemnations really has to stop so that any Nation, new or old, knows what to expect from a Region or Nation with a Condemnation attached.

But, do TBH need 2 condemnations? No, no they don't.

[Sygian II]

But, do TBH need 2 condemnations? No, no they don't.

Why not?

[Cerian Quilor]

The condemnations address two different groups of offenses that TBH is responsible for, AND SC52 is of historical relevance as the first condemnation of raiders for simply raiding. If we're going to obsessively keep Condemn Macedon on the books for historical reasons, the same should be done for this resolution.

[Drasnia]

Cormactopia Prime, I fully agree with the first part of your statement. We should not be considering whether the receiver wishes the Condemnation or not, we should be focussed on whether they deserve it. The corruption of purpose on the condemnations really has to stop so that any Nation, new or old, knows what to expect from a Region or Nation with a Condemnation attached.

But, do TBH need 2 condemnations? No, no they don't.

I'm actually fully with Cormac on this one. I think C&Cs should be for people who have played the game and played it well. TBH is one of those groups. I think that having two condemns is a perfectly fine precedent, and TBH is probably about the only org I'd be happy to give two condemns to. Also, the historical significance argument just makes this stronger.

As such, I'm against this repeal.

[Small Huts]

But, do TBH need 2 condemnations? No, no they don't.

Why not?

Concerned that accumulating condemnations encourages unsportsmanlike behaviour in anyone pursuing only notoriety,

Please read the proposal.

[Sygian II]

Why not?

Concerned that accumulating condemnations encourages unsportsmanlike behaviour in anyone pursuing only notoriety,

Please read the proposal.

I tried, but I cringed.

[Cerian Quilor]

But, do TBH need 2 condemnations? No, no they don't.

Yes, yes they do.

[Kurnugia]

I know I am repeating a bunch of points but I need to say my word

I would like to point out that condemnation is very important. SC Resolution #52 is the first and thus of historical and cultural relevance in the Raider culture. As such, seeing defender/raider are an important part of nationstates, is of international importance. Dare I say that SC #52 is a Patrimoine of the Raider culture.

As mentioned by the repeal condemnation is a source of pride for raiders. However fails completely to address the age of the black hawks. I think a badge does not old, active and most importantly good playing nation recognize those criteria enough. Which is why a second badge makes sense.

[Small Huts]

It should not be surprising that even since Antiquity one may still have much to learn about the world, but it still is. I appreciate everyone's participation in this Proposal. It has been a valuable and rewarding experience. Moreover, it has been a pleasant one. I am glad that we may express our disagreements peacefully.

My greatest gratitude,

Shall Huts