[DEFEATED] Repeal “Condemn the Black Hawks”

[Roavin]

I apologize. I misspoke. SC#231 adds to my argument that regions that are not special don't deserve condemnations. TBH is special and SC#52 doesn't say that. All it says is that they are raiders and that because of that they are bad. It goes on to describe a bunch of stuff about TBH threatening WA delegates which hasn't yet been proven to happen (to my knowledge) and that this causes a 'cooling effect on free speech'. The second condemnation, #231, actually explains why the Black Hawks are special and worthy of a condemnation.

I mean, as far I as know though, TBH is the only group to have had a concentrated raiding effort targeting WADs in order to affect an SC vote, and also the only one to mass target WAD streaks. Those are pretty direct attacks on world assembly delegates and the SC.

There was this once, though admittedly I got the idea from TBH

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Just because Texas got repeal doesn't mean folks need to "get even" and repeal the Hawk's.

Maybe someone could write Texas a new nicer one instead.

Both Commend Texas and Condmen the Black Hawks are extremely historical resolutions. Many of the points in "Repeal Commend Texas" echo my points here. The CONSIDERED and REASONING clauses discuss why Texas isn't special. This is exactly parallel to SC#52 which states that TBH are raiders and that raiders are bad. SC#231 sets this precedent, it would only be sensible to follow it.

What ended up being widely cited at the stronger argument/set of clauses in SC#231 were those which pointed out that many of the achievements were those of an individual, and better covered in an (existing) individual commendation. That line of discussion is what swayed against votes into for votes and passed the proposal. Even if perfectly argued, I would not rely on the other aspects argued.

That, and what Jakker said about the resolution itself setting a precedence.

[Kylia Quilor]

A commend texas that actually commended the region for things the region did would be fine.

[Ramaeus]

@OP: I would go ahead and submit this. You're not going to get any meaningful feedback. Just more squabbling.

[Fauxia]

@OP: I would go ahead and submit this. You're not going to get any meaningful feedback. Just more squabbling.

I second this

[The Noble Thatcherites]

Submitted.

[Abhichandra]

Good luck!

[States of Glory]

BELIEVING that the Black Hawks, which have committed many indecent acts against other regions should not have any sort of recognition by the Security Council;

So you'll be repealing SC #217 a.k.a. Condemn The Black Hawks then? After all, 'the Black Hawks...should not have any sort of recognition by the Security Council'.

[Sil Dorsett]

OOC:
I am challenging The Noble Thatcherites's proposal to Repeal "Condemn The Black Hawks" (SC#52) under rule 4c of the Security Council proposal rules.

(c) You cannot refer to the game, or events or actions in it, as part of a game.

The offending section is as follows, with the bolded and underlined phase being the violation itself:

FURTHER NOTING that while SC#52 stated that “a vote in favor of this resolution will make World Assembly delegates and their regions targets of The Black Hawks, as has been reported following previous proposal attempts.” while the contrary was actually true, with a majority of World Assembly votes cast from regions with founders, game created regions, raider allies, or already under raider control, thus making them invulnerable to raids;

I see this being easily correctable but will require withdrawal and resubmission. I apologize to the author for the inconvenience.

[Wrapper]

Legality challenges in the SC don't work the same way as they do in the GA. Just post your reasoning in the drafting thread. Threads merged.

In this case, yes, "game created regions" clearly violates rule 4(c). I'll have a game mod remove it, unless the author can withdraw it first.

EDIT: Looks like the author has withdrawn the proposal.

[The Noble Thatcherites]

I'll have a game mod remove it, unless the author can withdraw it first.

I withdrew the proposal. Thanks for catching that. I’ll remove the offending clause and re-propose.

BELIEVING that the Black Hawks, which have committed many indecent acts against other regions should not have any sort of recognition by the Security Council;

So you'll be repealing SC #217 a.k.a. Condemn The Black Hawks then? After all, 'the Black Hawks...should not have any sort of recognition by the Security Council'.

Thanks for catching that. It is not whatsoever my intend to have SC217 repealed. Now that I have withdrawn the proposal I will remove this clause.

[Sil Dorsett]

OOC: Again, I apologize for the late catch and the delay it will cause. I also suggest that mention of "regions with founders" might also be a violation since the concept of a founder is a gameplay aspect given that some regions do not have founders. But, I do admit it might be a stretch.

[The Noble Thatcherites]

OOC: Again, I apologize for the late catch and the delay it will cause. I also suggest that mention of "regions with founders" might also be a violation since the concept of a founder is a gameplay aspect given that some regions do not have founders. But, I do admit it might be a stretch.

It’s perfectly fine. I’m glad it was caught before it went to the floor of the SC though. Regarding the term “regions with founders”. Is there any way to say this IC? The same goes for “game created regions”. Is there any way to say this IC?

[Wrapper]

Regarding the term “regions with founders”. Is there any way to say this IC? The same goes for “game created regions”. Is there any way to say this IC?

In the past authors have figured out ways to cleverly explain founderless regions using in-character language (e.g. "they lost their original founder early in their existence", SC#219; "after its founder was destroyed by an act of God", SC#184). See what you can come up with. As for GCRs, we allow the use of the terms "feeders" and "sinkers" (see here). In the context of your resolution, you can replace "game created regions" with "feeder and sinker regions".

[The Noble Thatcherites]

The "FURTHER NOTING" clause sounds a bit awkward, but I fixed it, so now the entire proposal should be compliant with the rules. Any suggestions for making it sound less awkward? Anything I've overlooked?

I didn't explicitly thank Sil Dorsett and Wrapper before, but thanks to them I was saved from major embarrassment. I completely overlooked the "FURTHER NOTING" clause, and I am extremely thankful that they caught the mistake. Thanks!

[The Noble Thatcherites]

(If I didn't make this clear in my last post, please check the original post for the new draft)

[Unibot III]

The "FURTHER NOTING" clause sounds a bit awkward, but I fixed it, so now the entire proposal should be compliant with the rules. Any suggestions for making it sound less awkward? Anything I've overlooked?

I didn't explicitly thank Sil Dorsett and Wrapper before, but thanks to them I was saved from major embarrassment. I completely overlooked the "FURTHER NOTING" clause, and I am extremely thankful that they caught the mistake. Thanks!

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say in the FURTHER NOTING clause - could you clarify here? I think the issue with the current draft as it stands is it is a perfectly good repeal of both condemnations - including the condemnation that you believe is well written and sufficient.

[The Noble Thatcherites]

The "FURTHER NOTING" clause sounds a bit awkward, but I fixed it, so now the entire proposal should be compliant with the rules. Any suggestions for making it sound less awkward? Anything I've overlooked?

I didn't explicitly thank Sil Dorsett and Wrapper before, but thanks to them I was saved from major embarrassment. I completely overlooked the "FURTHER NOTING" clause, and I am extremely thankful that they caught the mistake. Thanks!

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say in the FURTHER NOTING clause - could you clarify here? I think the issue with the current draft as it stands is it is a perfectly good repeal of both condemnations - including the condemnation that you believe is well written and sufficient.

That clause acknowledges that SC52 said that WA delegates where being threatened for voting in favor of the resolution and then it goes on to say that that was untrue because a majority of votes came from regions that can't be raided.

My resolution only attacks SC52. It picks at its flaws and blatant lies and leaves the second condemnation alone.

[Unibot III]

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say in the FURTHER NOTING clause - could you clarify here? I think the issue with the current draft as it stands is it is a perfectly good repeal of both condemnations - including the condemnation that you believe is well written and sufficient.

That clause acknowledges that SC52 said that WA delegates where being threatened for voting in favor of the resolution and then it goes on to say that that was untrue because a majority of votes came from regions that can't be raided.

My resolution only attacks SC52. It picks at its flaws and blatant lies and leaves the second condemnation alone.

Err, GCRs can certainly be couped. TBH, for instance, was involved quite candidly in previous coup attempts in the South Pacific. It’s just a different kind of invasion. Ironically, the main argument that TSPers used to defend treaties with Invader groups was that without treaties, they would help coup TSP.

[The Noble Thatcherites]

That clause acknowledges that SC52 said that WA delegates where being threatened for voting in favor of the resolution and then it goes on to say that that was untrue because a majority of votes came from regions that can't be raided.

My resolution only attacks SC52. It picks at its flaws and blatant lies and leaves the second condemnation alone.

Err, GCRs can certainly be couped. TBH, for instance, was involved quite candidly in previous coup attempts in the South Pacific. It’s just a different kind of invasion. Ironically, the main argument that TSPers used to defend treaties with Invader groups was that without treaties, they would help coup TSP.

CONCERNED that The Black Hawks have openly targeted and raided hundreds of regions and used regional bans to permanently exert their control.

~SC #52

The tone here really points to non GCRs but you're still right.

[Unibot III]

Err, GCRs can certainly be couped. TBH, for instance, was involved quite candidly in previous coup attempts in the South Pacific. It’s just a different kind of invasion. Ironically, the main argument that TSPers used to defend treaties with Invader groups was that without treaties, they would help coup TSP.

CONCERNED that The Black Hawks have openly targeted and raided hundreds of regions and used regional bans to permanently exert their control.

~SC #52

The tone here really points to non GCRs but you're still right.

I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure it's the best way to put it, because the truth is, especially major regions have faced political intimidation from the Black Hawks. TSP is probably the biggest example of this.

I'll think about rewording it, but I'm not sure the product will make for a substantive and compelling reason to vote to repeal.

[Unibot III]

Perhaps...

FURTHER NOTING that SC#52 ominously suggested that a vote cast in favour of the resolution would prompt retaliation from the Black Hawks, but no such retaliation or retributive use of force on the part of the Black Hawks manifested itself in the sense that SC#52 had falsely speculated;

I believe that's historically accurate. I don't recall anyone getting invaded on the grounds of SC#52.

[The Noble Thatcherites]

Perhaps...

FURTHER NOTING that SC#52 ominously suggested that a vote cast in favour of the resolution would prompt retaliation from the Black Hawks, but no such retaliation or retributive use of force on the part of the Black Hawks manifested itself in the sense that SC#52 had falsely speculated;

I believe that's historically accurate. I don't recall anyone getting invaded on the grounds of SC#52.

Yeah. I couldn't find any evidence that made this true.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

While I’m not sure either way if any occurred around the time of ‘52 off the top of my head, I can state that we have run raids in order to affect various stages of WA votes either way at least...we’ll, off my head, I think at least twice in my time. At least one was sniping approvals in the quorum stage. So, it *has* happened.

[Cormactopia Prime]

While I’m not sure either way if any occurred around the time of ‘52 off the top of my head, I can state that we have run raids in order to affect various stages of WA votes either way at least...we’ll, off my head, I think at least twice in my time. At least one was sniping approvals in the quorum stage. So, it *has* happened.

I can confirm that The Black Hawks did this to kill votes for my (regrettable) proposal, Liberate Illuminati.