NationStates

Fruo wrote:submit it soon though and then we can use this repeal to get all the raider condemnation and give them the opposites

Is that why you decided to plagiarise Zaberaz’s draft and submit it under your name?

You have been reported to Moderation.

Nothing to see here, totally didn't try to delete and couldn't.

Jedinsto wrote:Have fun being ejected and banned from the WA, Fruo!

They were a DoS according to the Voice of Mod telegram I received.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:Have fun being ejected and banned from the WA, Fruo!

They were a DoS according to the Voice of Mod telegram I received.

Yeah I saw in the moderation forum. I was pretty surprised when I saw the got deleted not just ejected.

Eh, No. This seems kinda dumb.

Zaberaz Hapang wrote:

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Better, but still not very good.

One thing you should be aware of is that numerous attempts have been made to repeal SC#52 using much the same old tired arguments as yourself. They’ve all failed.

The Hawks deserve their two badges - nothing you’ve written will persuade anyone that they don’t.

Anyone that doesn't like the black hawks should want this, the black hawks WANT their two condemms, so the best course of action is to give them less propaganda and recruitment material.

The other thing you haven’t realised is that Condemnation badges are awarded to nations or regions that have played the villain extremely well for a long period of time. And by any stretch of the imagination TBH have fulfilled that requirement, on both their badges.

That they use that as part of their propaganda is neither here nor there.

The in the NOTING clause does not need to be capitalized

Flying Eagles wrote:The in the NOTING clause does not need to be capitalized

corrected

Unless there are any more comments I'll submit this on thursday

Zaberaz Hapang wrote:Unless there are any more comments I'll submit this on thursday

I'm not supporting this. TBH deserves both of their badges for their raiding activities over the years.

Mostly stylistic, but I'd end the clauses with a comma or a semicolon rather than a period.

Did some changes to make it easier to go more in-depth

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

Yes it does, but TBH deserves both of their badges as they've played the role of a villian for a long time.

STATING that the original resolution has very few arguments as to why specifically The Black Hawks is special and deserves to be condemned.

It actually gives a lot of arguments despite being an early SC proposal.

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

How does it not give specific examples? Also according to that logic we should repeal many of the historical resolutions based on that same premise. Also, more filler.

BELIEVING that the original proposal has done more harm than good by giving The Black Hawks propaganda and recruitment material.

According to your logic we should repeal every single region condemnation because it gives them propaganda and recruitment material.

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

Balck Hawks? What the hell are Balck Hawks? Please work on your spelling.

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

Noting that this is a repeal of a historic condemnation that TBH has worked hard to achieve.

I'm still not convinced and don't follow your reasoning to repeal SC52 other than "it gives them propaganda material" and that "TBH likes both badges so it does more harm than good." Not very good reasoning and you must add a lot more if you are to properly make your case.

OS has done quite a nice forensic dissection of your draft which I’m not going to repeat. To me, although you’ve put more detail into your draft, your argument boils down to “evil raiders bad” and that’s about it.

Wrong. Keep them condemned for as long as possible. Even better to add a second condemnation

Pchelionia wrote:Wrong. Keep them condemned for as long as possible. Even better to add a second condemnation

They already have a second Condemnation.

Xoriet wrote:

Pchelionia wrote:Wrong. Keep them condemned for as long as possible. Even better to add a second condemnation

They already have a second Condemnation.

Give them a third.

[NOTING the original proposal makes vague claims without giving any specific examples.
How does it not give specific examples? Also according to that logic we should repeal many of the historical resolutions based on that same premise. Also, more filler.

It doesn't state any specific raids carried by TBH basically just saying TBH bad.

BELIEVING that the original proposal has done more harm than good by giving The Black Hawks propaganda and recruitment material.
According to your logic we should repeal every single region condemnation because it gives them propaganda and recruitment material.

The thing is that condemnation are supposed to show disapproval of a nation or region but in this case it's doing the opposite

WISHING to stop the Balck Hawks from using this condemnation as a badge of honor which defeats the purpose of the original resolution.
Balck Hawks? What the hell are Balck Hawks? Please work on your spelling.

Corrected

FURTHER NOTING that this is not a pardon of The Black Hawks' acts against defenseless founderless regions.
Noting that this is a repeal of a historic condemnation that TBH has worked hard to achieve.

For being historic resolutions aren't immune from being repealed, the first ever SC resolution has been repealed.

In addition to BBD pointing out a crippling lack of research, like someone else said, most people want condemnations. If there is any argument for repealing either of the condemnations, it would be to annoy TBH and point out how lacking in power projection they are today compared to then, and therefore don't deserve to keep their shiny badge. But even that would be very flimsy and likely unpopular.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:The Hawks deserve their two badges

Oh, how the mighty and "most-feared" have fallen.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Xoriet wrote:They already have a second Condemnation.

Give them a third.

What planet are you on? TBH is slacking, hard. They even got their indie friends to boost them to a 10-stack last night and still got trounced by Libcord.

Zaberaz Hapang wrote:

[NOTING the original proposal makes vague claims without giving any specific examples.
How does it not give specific examples? Also according to that logic we should repeal many of the historical resolutions based on that same premise. Also, more filler.

It doesn't state any specific raids carried by TBH basically just saying TBH bad.

BELIEVING that the original proposal has done more harm than good by giving The Black Hawks propaganda and recruitment material.
According to your logic we should repeal every single region condemnation because it gives them propaganda and recruitment material.

The thing is that condemnation are supposed to show disapproval of a nation or region but in this case it's doing the opposite

WISHING to stop the Balck Hawks from using this condemnation as a badge of honor which defeats the purpose of the original resolution.
Balck Hawks? What the hell are Balck Hawks? Please work on your spelling.

Corrected

FURTHER NOTING that this is not a pardon of The Black Hawks' acts against defenseless founderless regions.
Noting that this is a repeal of a historic condemnation that TBH has worked hard to achieve.

For being historic resolutions aren't immune from being repealed, the first ever SC resolution has been repealed.

Your reasoning falls flat on the basis that TBH are "evil and use condemnations as propaganda material" and you need to do a lot more research.

Quebecshire wrote:

The Reformed American Republic wrote:Give them a third.

What planet are you on? TBH is slacking, hard. They even got their indie friends to boost them to a 10-stack last night and still got trounced by Libcord.

I'm on the planet of Not Taking Any Of This Seriously. It wasn't a serious post.

Quebecshire wrote:

The Reformed American Republic wrote:Give them a third.

What planet are you on? TBH is slacking, hard. They even got their indie friends to boost them to a 10-stack last night and still got trounced by Libcord.

Maybe keep the gloating in Gameplay? Note also as an R/D neutral I have seen plenty of times in the last few years (post Predator) defender orgs crying in their beers over their inability to defend. Swings and roundabouts.

Okay, so uh there's a lot of things that can possibly be improved here.

First of all, I see that you've used full-stop after each clause. I believe a comma or a semi-colon would be better in this case?

RECOGNIZING the good intent of the original proposal.

STATING that the original resolution has very few arguments as to why specifically The Black Hawks is special and deserves to be condemned.

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.

I would like to know the name and the number of the proposal you're trying to repeal here. Simply saying "the original proposal" isn't cutting it out for anyone since I'm pretty sure TBH had plenty of condemnation proposals before this one passed. And not everyone can infer which SCR you're repealing from the title alone, since TBH currently has two active condemnations.

STATING that the original resolution has very few arguments as to why specifically The Black Hawks is special and deserves to be condemned.

I would like to know what those arguments are and how are they lacking in making their case.

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

Again, what are those arguments? How are they vague? What are they lacking?

BELIEVING that the original proposal has done more harm than good by giving The Black Hawks propaganda and recruitment material.

This can be worded significantly better, I believe. Perhaps make some reference to the contents of their recruitment telegram?

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

I don't think this clause is necessary, since no one's forgetting about TBH's acts anytime soon. They have two active condemnations after all

Therefore, repeals SC resolution #52 Condemn The Black Hawks

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's illegal to end a proposal with anything but "Hereby" at the start of the ending clause. So it will be;

Hereby repeals the Security Council resolution #52 "Condemn The Black Hawks"

Honestly speaking, it's not good enough at its current state. It might reach quorum with an intensive TG campaign, but is sure to fall flat at the voting floor. I would suggest reading over SCR#52 again, see what specific arguments you can make against it. It might also help checking some previous successful C/C repeals and finding out what made them work. Good luck with the draft!

Moonfungus wrote:I would like to know the name and the number of the proposal you're trying to repeal here. Simply saying "the original proposal" isn't cutting it out for anyone since I'm pretty sure TBH had plenty of condemnation proposals before this one passed. And not everyone can infer which SCR you're repealing from the title alone, since TBH currently has two active condemnations.

I don't believe this is good advice. It's perfectly valid use terms like "the target resolution" and nothing is lost. Repeals automatically have "Security Council Resolution #X “[name]” shall be struck out and rendered null and void." placed as the very first line with a hyperlink to the target resolution. There is no reason to have that stated again on the second line if the author does not wish it.

Moonfungus wrote:Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's illegal to end a proposal with anything but "Hereby" at the start of the ending clause. So it will be;

This is also incorrect. What is required is an operative clause. An actual invocation of the act that the resolution is about. "Hereby repeals" is certainly the easiest way to go about this, but it isn't the only way. Although clunky, this is a complete idea and will suffice:

"The Security Council,
[...]
Repeals SC#52: Condemn The Black Hawks"

Something like "Now be it therefore struck from the ledger of standing legislation and repealed, effective immediately" is obnoxious, but also a valid operative clause to my eyes. There's flexibility in how the author wishes to present their goals, so long as they actually accomplish the point of enacting the resolution.