Repeal SC#52 - Condemn The Black Hawks [DISC.]

[South Reinkalistan]

Repeal SC#52 - Condemn the Black Hawks

---

The Security Council,

Recognising that The Black Hawks has been condemned twice by the Security Council;

Applauding this display of international decisiveness to show that menaces such as The Black Hawks cannot run rampant unpunished;

Understanding, however, that the following clauses of SC#52 are no longer relevant:

• Clause 3, covered extensively by SC#217, the secondary condemnation for The Black Hawks;
• Clause 4, lacking relevance to provide a sufficient basis for condemnation by itself;
• Clauses 5 and 6, both being deemed relatively insignificant;

Acknowledging the intent of SC#52 to help preserve the continued function of the Security Council;

Refuting the idea that The Black Hawks could significantly hamper the processes of the Security Council at the level that SC#52 emphasises;

Affirming that SC#52 is no longer relevant in the current international state of affairs;

Committed to the ideal that unnecessary and irrelevant legislation must be repealed accordingly;

Hereby repeals SC#52.

Repeal SC#52 - Condemn The Black Hawks
Category: Repeal | Subject: SC#52 - "Condemn The Black Hawks"

---

The Security Council,

Recognising that The Black Hawks has been condemned twice by the Security Council;

Applauding this display of international decisiveness to make an example of menaces such as The Black Hawks, and ensure that they do not run rampant unpunished;

Reaffirming the prerogative of the Security Council to spread international peace and goodwill, through force if necessary;

Understanding, however, that regretfully SC#52, a historical piece of legislation, can no longer be considered relevant to this aim;

Noting that the following clauses are not necessary and bear no relevance today:

• Clauses 1 and 3, each having been covered extensively by SC#217, the secondary condemnation for The Black Hawks;
• Clause 4, lacking relevance to provide a sufficient basis for condemnation by itself;
• Clauses 5 and 6, both raising concerns that can be reasonably dismissed;

Acknowledging the intent of SC#52 to help preserve the continued function of the Security Council;

Refuting the notion that The Black Hawks could significantly hamper the processes of the Security Council at the level that SC#52 emphasises;

Asserting that SC#52 is no longer necessary to further the Security Council's aforementioned prerogative;

Committed to the ideal that unnecessary and irrelevant legislation must be repealed accordingly;

Hereby repeals SC#52.

[Honeydewistania]

This is a badge hunt and also this repeal is about as relevant as what you call the proposal

[South Reinkalistan]

This is a badge hunt and also this repeal is about as relevant as what you call the proposal

OOC: Understandable; I realise that some might see this as badge hunting, even though I may disagree with such a notion. I just see no place for irrelevant legislation in the Security Council. Why should we keep it there for the sake of it? Surely, once legislation has been deemed irrelevant, it should be discarded? I think it'd be much better to reflect upon the fact that justification must be provided for the continuation of SC#52 in such an instance. I'm afraid "you're badge hunting" is an ad hominem fallacy, and does not bear relevance to my proposal.

As for the question of this repeal's supposed irrelevancy, can you provide reasoning for such a statement?

[Lord Dominator]

I rather suspect this will fill like the 4+ attempts before it, but have at it I guess.

[Xoriet]

I don't know why you guys always pick the controversial/difficult ones to attempt.

[South Reinkalistan]

I rather suspect this will fill like the 4+ attempts before it, but have at it I guess.

OOC: Thanks for your kind words LD! This kind of support is what makes the SC such a friendly and welcoming place to be

I don't know why you guys always pick the controversial/difficult ones to attempt.

OOC: Why, for the fun of the challenge, of course! What's the point in capitalising off of popular authority on things like this? Surely it'd be much more rewarding and fulfilling to present a different perspective, and maybe, just maybe, get a proposal passed off the back of it? After all, there's no fun in just submitting a liberation motion for a near-universally vilified region, making it essentially guaranteed to pass, is there? *Cough* SC#263 *Cough*

Nonetheless, I've decided to begin work on a second draft, perhaps flesh out my reasoning a bit more. Will be posting soon ^-^

[Lord Dominator]

I rather suspect this will fill like the 4+ attempts before it, but have at it I guess.

OOC: Thanks for your kind words LD! This kind of support is what makes the SC such a friendly and welcoming place to be

Don't mistake my apathy on the subject for support, I just enjoy watching people draft things

[South Reinkalistan]

OOC: Aight, second draft. I've added on a bit - feedback and constructive criticism will be appreciated!

Repeal SC#52 - Condemn The Black Hawks
Category: Repeal | Subject: SC#52 - "Condemn The Black Hawks"

---

The Security Council,

Recognising that The Black Hawks has been condemned twice by the Security Council;

Applauding this display of international decisiveness to make an example of menaces such as The Black Hawks, and ensure that they do not run rampant unpunished;

Reaffirming the prerogative of the Security Council to spread international peace and goodwill, through force if necessary;

Understanding, however, that regretfully SC#52, a historical piece of legislation, can no longer be considered relevant to this aim;

Noting that the following clauses are not necessary and bear no relevance today:

• Clauses 1 and 3, each having been covered extensively by SC#217, the secondary condemnation for The Black Hawks;
• Clause 4, lacking relevance to provide a sufficient basis for condemnation by itself;
• Clauses 5 and 6, both raising concerns that can be reasonably dismissed;

Acknowledging the intent of SC#52 to help preserve the continued function of the Security Council;

Refuting the notion that The Black Hawks could significantly hamper the processes of the Security Council at the level that SC#52 emphasises;

Asserting that SC#52 is no longer necessary to further the Security Council's aforementioned prerogative;

Committed to the ideal that unnecessary and irrelevant legislation must be repealed accordingly;

Hereby repeals SC#52.

[South Reinkalistan]

OOC: Thanks for your kind words LD! This kind of support is what makes the SC such a friendly and welcoming place to be

Don't mistake my apathy on the subject for support, I just enjoy watching people draft things

OOC: Oh no, I was being conceited and sarcastic there

At any rate, I'd be happy to receive feedback!

[Morover]

OOC: I'd suggest putting the current draft in the OP.

[South Reinkalistan]

OOC: I'd suggest putting the current draft in the OP.

OOC: Good idea - I'll do that now (⌒_⌒;)

[WayNeacTia]

This is a badge hunt and also this repeal is about as relevant as what you call the proposal

Pretty much sums it up. But then again I have been declared an enemy of the CCD, so my opinion won't matter much to the author anywho. Either way it will never see vote and if it does it will be smashed to pieces, but have at it.

[South Reinkalistan]

This is a badge hunt and also this repeal is about as relevant as what you call the proposal

Pretty much sums it up. But then again I have been declared an enemy of the CCD, so my opinion won't matter much to the author anywho. Either way it will never see vote and if it does it will be smashed to pieces, but have at it.

OOC: Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem! Argh! Though you aren't technically an enemy of the CCD yet at the time of writing. The registry still has to pass voting. And even so, you'll still only be considered an enemy of the CCD by the Confederation's Civil Congress, not its governing body itself... etc;

Though it does go to prove how the CCD is effectively like Godwin's Law for NS. Still, if anyone has any legitimate, constructive criticism other than "you're CCD", "badge hunting", and "this will fail", I'd love to hear it.

EDIT: You also very clearly missed this:

Thus, your esteemed opinion would be very invaluable to me, dear Wayneactia

[WayNeacTia]

Thus, your esteemed opinion would be very invaluable to me, dear Wayneactia

My opinion? Drop it. It won't pass. I don't say this because you are a member of the CCD, I say this because my experience tells me so. It was a deserved condemnation and most people will see it that way. Come up with something fresh and new, and then I will have a look.

[South Reinkalistan]

Thus, your esteemed opinion would be very invaluable to me, dear Wayneactia

My opinion? Drop it. It won't pass. I don't say this because you are a member of the CCD, I say this because my experience tells me so. It was a deserved condemnation and most people will see it that way. Come up with something fresh and new, and then I will have a look.

OOC: Oh I'm not saying the condemnation isn't deserved, I addressed that in the proposal. I'm saying that it's made irrelevant by the more recent condemnation.

[WayNeacTia]

My opinion? Drop it. It won't pass. I don't say this because you are a member of the CCD, I say this because my experience tells me so. It was a deserved condemnation and most people will see it that way. Come up with something fresh and new, and then I will have a look.

OOC: Oh I'm not saying the condemnation isn't deserved, I addressed that in the proposal. I'm saying that it's made irrelevant by the more recent condemnation.

You can say that, and you would be wrong.

[South Reinkalistan]

OOC: Oh I'm not saying the condemnation isn't deserved, I addressed that in the proposal. I'm saying that it's made irrelevant by the more recent condemnation.

You can say that, and you would be wrong.

OOC: Why so?

[Tinhampton]

FOR, naturally. I continue to see no reason to keep superfluous legislation on the books as I did two-and-a-half months ago.

[Honeydewistania]

This thing is, the second one was not written to replace it. If it was, the repeal would had been written ages ago.

[South Reinkalistan]

This thing is, the second one was not written to replace it. If it was, the repeal would had been written ages ago.

OOC: Intent =/= reality. It replaces it in essence, really. Until you can provide me a valid point from the original resolution that is either no longer relevant or covered by the second condemnation, I will continue to see no need for SC#52 to remain.

[WayNeacTia]

This thing is, the second one was not written to replace it. If it was, the repeal would had been written ages ago.

OOC: Intent =/= reality. It replaces it in essence, really. Until you can provide me a valid point from the original resolution that is either no longer relevant or covered by the second condemnation, I will continue to see no need for SC#52 to remain.

That is your decision. Don't say you weren't warned when this fails.

[South Reinkalistan]

OOC: Intent =/= reality. It replaces it in essence, really. Until you can provide me a valid point from the original resolution that is either no longer relevant or covered by the second condemnation, I will continue to see no need for SC#52 to remain.

That is your decision. Don't say you weren't warned when this fails.

OOC: Do you have any idea how frustrating it is for everyone to tell me my resolution will fail without providing reasoning? I asked you why once, and I'll ask you again: why will it fail? In what way is the first proposal still relevant?

[Kuriko]

That is your decision. Don't say you weren't warned when this fails.

OOC: Do you have any idea how frustrating it is for everyone to tell me my resolution will fail without providing reasoning? I asked you why once, and I'll ask you again: why will it fail? In what way is the first proposal still relevant?

It will fail because all of the GCRs, and most UCRs, believe that it shouldn't be repealed and will vote against it. If it does get close, TBH will use their military and start toppling Delegate's voting in favor in order to make it fail.

[South Reinkalistan]

OOC: Do you have any idea how frustrating it is for everyone to tell me my resolution will fail without providing reasoning? I asked you why once, and I'll ask you again: why will it fail? In what way is the first proposal still relevant?

It will fail because all of the GCRs, and most UCRs, believe that it shouldn't be repealed and will vote against it. If it does get close, TBH will use their military and start toppling Delegate's voting in favor in order to make it fail.

OOC: Oh, I understand that completely - I know how the cliques in NS operate. You see, I was writing this from the rather naive stance that people would perhaps vote based on reason and evidence, rather than voting based on fearmongering and delegate clout.

From what I see, the only "reason" that SC#52 hasn't been repealed is because TBH likes having their shiny double commendation. Don't get me wrong, I can understand that (after all in the Confederation, we all love our liberation badge ). But the point still stands - irrelevant legislation should always be removed. So far, I haven't had a decent argument presented that suggests otherwise. Is it so unreasonable to ask that people vote according to what is evident, rather than vote according to this blatant WA cabal?

But I digress. I'd very dearly like to know why people would vote against it. Is that too much to ask?

[A Bloodred Moon]

See, if you’d done a single shit worth of research you’d know all the reasons people will vote against. You obviously haven’t, so the proposal is doomed from the start.

Obviously against.