NATION

PASSWORD

Repeal “Condemn The Black Hawks”

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Moonfungus
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 45
Founded: Feb 24, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Moonfungus » Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:08 am

Ah makes sense, was a bit confused about those :p
Nation does not represent real-life views
Currently residing in The South Pacific
Senior Warden in The Order of The Grey Wardens

User avatar
Zaberaz Hapang
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 45
Founded: Apr 29, 2020
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Zaberaz Hapang » Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:34 am

Did a few changes based on the feedback I have received
Last edited by Zaberaz Hapang on Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Indibagion Mer
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 45
Founded: Aug 22, 2018
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Indibagion Mer » Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:08 am

Zaberaz Hapang wrote:The Security Council,

RECOGNIZING the good intent of the original proposal;

ACKNOWLEDGING SC resolution #217 goes much further in-depth about why The Black Hawks deserves a condemnation;

STATING that the original resolution has very few arguments as to why specifically The Black Hawks is special and deserves to be condemned with arguments such as: "CONCERNED that The Black Hawks have openly targeted and raided hundreds of regions and used regional bans to permanently exert their control.";

NOTING the original proposal makes vague claims without giving any specific examples;

BELIEVING that the original proposal has done more harm than good by giving The Black Hawks propaganda and recruitment material as they say in their recruitment telegram: "The Black Hawks: The Most Feared Military Organization in NationStates. Now the only region with two World Assembly Condemnations!";

WISHING to stop the Black Hawks from using this condemnation as a badge of honor which defeats the purpose of the original resolution;

FURTHER NOTING that this is not a pardon of The Black Hawks' acts against defenseless founderless regions;

Hereby, repeals SC resolution #52 Condemn The Black Hawks


No we like it

User avatar
Kingdom of Englands
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 59
Founded: Feb 08, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kingdom of Englands » Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:03 am

Against this
King and Founder of Institute of Cellulose
Longest Serving WA Delegate for Isle of wooloo Kingdom at 113 days.
Longest Serving WA Delegate for The Wooloo Pact at 48 days.

Former High King & Co - Founder of Isle of Wooloo Kingdom
Former President of Old Zealand
Former Main nation of United England n Wales and North American Imperial State.
Now my main nation.
My Puppets are UENW, UENW-Wooloos and others.
British male
Half-English
Half-Scottish
Living in the UK.
Centrist
#FREE HONG
Hate the PRC

User avatar
Zaberaz Hapang
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 45
Founded: Apr 29, 2020
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Zaberaz Hapang » Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:21 am

Last call

User avatar
Outer Sparta
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11716
Founded: Dec 26, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Outer Sparta » Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:48 am

Still unconvinced at your repeal arguments. All you say is that "they use it for propaganda." By that logic, we should repeal every region condemnation because it encourages them to do propaganda.
social democracy, environmental protection, universal healthcare, free college, social equality, LGBT, pro-choice,
GOP, corporate socialism, Trump, neoconservatism, white supremacy, extreme political views, corruption

User avatar
Eumaeus
Envoy
 
Posts: 216
Founded: Jan 27, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Eumaeus » Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:16 am

Zaberaz Hapang wrote:The Security Council,

RECOGNIZING the good intent of the original proposal;

ACKNOWLEDGING SC resolution #217 goes much further in-depth about why The Black Hawks deserves a condemnation;

While it is only my personal opinion that Security Council ought to be spelled out when referencing a resolution, objectively resolution needs to be capitalized here. Additionally, there should be a "that" after acknowledging.

Furthermore, referencing a specific resolution by number prior to acknowledging the number of the target resolution further muddles the clarity of which condemnation is being discussed when. Another point of technicality is in regard to the use of the word "proposal" in the first clause: the terms "draft", "proposal", and "resolution" each have different meanings, as they each refer to different stages in the SC's legislative process (drafting, voting, and passage respectively).

The first clause would be more effective as "RECOGNIZING the good intent of the original condemnation of The Black Hawks, Security Council Resolution #52 Condemn The Black Hawks;".

STATING that the original resolution has very few arguments as to why specifically The Black Hawks is special and deserves to be condemned with arguments such as: "CONCERNED that The Black Hawks have openly targeted and raided hundreds of regions and used regional bans to permanently exert their control.";

NOTING the original proposal makes vague claims without giving any specific examples;

The placement of this quote is completely off: you initially argue in this first clause that the resolution offers few arguments in favor of condemning TBH but go on to reference hundreds of attacks on other regions, undermining the point that you're attempting to make. Furthermore, offhandedly copy-pasting a quote here instead of listing the reasons given by SC #52 gives off the impression that the content of the resolution isn't the focus of your criticism (after all if there really are so few arguments then listing them shouldn't take much space). Compounding my initial concerns regarding the unwieldy use of this quote is the fact that the very next clause argues that SC #52 is too vague, an argument that the quote actually could have lent some support to.

You also completely fail to address (or even acknowledge) the second, more fleshed out prong of SC #52's argument regarding TBH's strong arming of the World Assembly and its implications regarding free speech and faith in the WA as an institution. I'm hesitant to imply that it was intentional, but this is potentially because that argument, which takes up a greater bulk of SC #52's text than the argument you've acknowledged, does not fit the narrative you've set up in which SC #52 is vague and lacking in content.
BELIEVING that the original proposal has done more harm than good by giving The Black Hawks propaganda and recruitment material as they say in their recruitment telegram: "The Black Hawks: The Most Feared Military Organization in NationStates. Now the only region with two World Assembly Condemnations!";

WISHING to stop the Black Hawks from using this condemnation as a badge of honor which defeats the purpose of the original resolution;

Outer Sparta's previous comment aptly explains the issues with these clauses: the logic that has been set forth in favor of each of the existing instances in which a double condemnation was deemed appropriate by the members of the World Assembly has been an extension of the same logic that has been used to counter the "badge of honor" argument for years. We all know that Raiders like being condemned but that's never been accepted as a reason not to condemn them.

Your argument that "condemnation [sic] are supposed to show disapproval of a nation or region but in this case it's doing the opposite" is incorrect in that what you're describing is true of all raider condemnations. While it could potentially be argued that having two condemnations has a distinct effect in terms of propaganda from that of a single condemnation, that is not what the text of this draft or your responses to feedback have sought to argue. By explicitly invoking the "badge of honor" argument you are presenting this condemnation not as an aberration from but as an extension of a (flawed) perspective of Security Council doctrine lobbying against all R/D condemnations.
FURTHER NOTING that this is not a pardon of The Black Hawks' acts against defenseless founderless regions;

I would comment that this clause feels incredibly tacked on in its current form/placement, but this concession isn't going to resonate with many WA members regardless of its form or placement.
Hereby, repeals SC resolution #52 Condemn The Black Hawks

What I said above about the 'acknowledging' clause applies here as well; that comma after "hereby" is unnecessary; there should be a period at the end of this sentence.

Substandard research, mediocre writing, poorly constructed arguments, and a flawed perspective makes this a hard against from me.
\▼/We Are Not the NSA\▼/

Raiding HistorySecurity CouncilDear NativesTWP Raid

"You ask my honorable name? My name is Nohbdy:
mother, father, and friends, everyone calls me Nohbdy."

User avatar
Refuge Isle
Diplomat
 
Posts: 689
Founded: Dec 14, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Refuge Isle » Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:27 am

There are frequently proposals that arise in the Security Council that are critical of the TBH condemnations and highlight that they are used as propaganda. This isn't news for us.

Doing a quick scan, I see 11 unique proposals to repeal a TBH condemnation since the start of 2019. For repealing SC#52, in particular, there have been three previous proposals in total which reached vote and were defeated.[1][2][3] So what makes this repeal attempt different and more credible than those that have come before it?

R/D politics aside, when you have a repeal that is as short as this one, the few arguments it brings to the table need to be powerful ones. Sometimes you can get away with writing this compact in the GA, as there are cases where the target resolution accidentally enacted something catastrophic, but that's not really the case here. You have two main arguments in this repeal. The first being that it's positive propaganda, which is an argument every failed repeal makes. The second is that the writing is simply not good enough, which is solvable with a repeal and replace. That isn't being done, so I feel you're not left with much chance for this passing.

An r/d political stance that could be had is that TBH simply doesn't deserve the badge of honour, for their raiding quality/ability to raid no longer justifies it. This is also swinging in the same political direction as a recent political statement from Balder and recent occupations such as Equestria which seemed to specifically exclude The Black Hawks. The viability of that strategy is hard to say, but you may pick up more votes than with your current angles.

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Security Council

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Crowheim

Advertisement

Remove ads