NationStates

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

Which one? There are two you know. Or didn’t your “research” get that far?

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Which one? There are two you know. Or didn’t your “research” get that far?

The first one, SC resolution #52

Zaberaz Hapang wrote:The Security Council,

RECOGNIZING the good intent of the original proposal.

SHOCKED by the fact that The Black Hawks have used this proposal as propaganda.

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

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

Therefore, repeals Condemn The Black Hawks

Alrighty, so I'm far from knowledgeable on the WA OR SC, but I would gander the majority of condemned nations and regions want to be condemned, and this repeal could set the standard that those that want to be condemned ought not be condemned for the reason that they would use it as propaganda and egoboosting, and therefore, it would inadvertently make condemnations totally obsolete and useless because if nobody that wants to be condemned is actually allowed to be condemned, then there will be but a trickle of condemnations coming out of the SC faucet.

Just food for thought.

Zaberaz Hapang wrote:

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Which one? There are two you know. Or didn’t your “research” get that far?

The first one, SC resolution #52

Then you need to reference it in your draft as well as addressing the contents of the resolution.

Might pay to read the SC rules first though.

J o J wrote:

Zaberaz Hapang wrote:The Security Council,

RECOGNIZING the good intent of the original proposal.

SHOCKED by the fact that The Black Hawks have used this proposal as propaganda.

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

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

Therefore, repeals Condemn The Black Hawks

Alrighty, so I'm far from knowledgeable on the WA OR SC, but I would gander the majority of condemned nations and regions want to be condemned, and this repeal could set the standard that those that want to be condemned ought not be condemned for the reason that they would use it as propaganda and egoboosting, and therefore, it would inadvertently make condemnations totally obsolete and useless because if nobody that wants to be condemned is actually allowed to be condemned, then there will be but a trickle of condemnations coming out of the SC faucet.

Just food for thought.

It is possible, however, condemnations are supposed to throw regions/nations back, not help them grow, The Black Hawks use their two condemmnations as recruitment material, to quote form their recruitment telegram: "The Black Hawks: The Most Feared Military Organization in NationStates. Now the only region with two World Assembly Condemnations!"

-The Black Hawks' recruitment telegram paragraph 4

Support.

There's not enough in this to warrant any support from me. Also, you have to keep in mind there are two condemnations and that whichever one you want to repeal has to address the contents of only that specific one.

Actually as well as not referencing the correct (any) resolution the draft as it stands is probably illegal. TBH is a region and regions, as far as I’m aware, can’t have egos. So R2(a) violation?

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Which one? There are two you know. Or didn’t your “research” get that far?

it says the first one at the bottom

Fruo wrote:

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Which one? There are two you know. Or didn’t your “research” get that far?

it says the first one at the bottom

It does now because the OP edited it in there after I asked the question.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Actually as well as not referencing the correct (any) resolution the draft as it stands is probably illegal. TBH is a region and regions, as far as I’m aware, can’t have egos. So R2(a) violation?

You are right, edited it to correct for that

It's too short. You probably just didn't research enough about TBH although my region has close relations with them after EWS commended it.

And Spaces wrote:It's too short. You probably just didn't research enough about TBH although my region has close relations with them after EWS commended it.

I personally don't believe just for being short a proposal is bad, you can make a 40 line proposal with a lot of filler or a 10 line one that gets straight to the point, I believe if they present good arguments both are good

Zaberaz Hapang wrote:

And Spaces wrote:It's too short. You probably just didn't research enough about TBH although my region has close relations with them after EWS commended it.

I personally don't believe just for being short a proposal is bad, you can make a 40 line proposal with a lot of filler or a 10 line one that gets straight to the point, I believe if they present good arguments both are good

Yup, just make sure to address the contents of the proposal itself, not just the fenda ideology.

Zaberaz Hapang wrote:

And Spaces wrote:It's too short. You probably just didn't research enough about TBH although my region has close relations with them after EWS commended it.

I personally don't believe just for being short a proposal is bad, you can make a 40 line proposal with a lot of filler or a 10 line one that gets straight to the point, I believe if they present good arguments both are good

What you personally believe doesn’t matter, it’s the rules that count and one of those for a repeal is to address the contents of the target resolution.

And I can’t see that you’ve done that.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:

Zaberaz Hapang wrote:I personally don't believe just for being short a proposal is bad, you can make a 40 line proposal with a lot of filler or a 10 line one that gets straight to the point, I believe if they present good arguments both are good

What you personally believe doesn’t matter, it’s the rules that count and one of those for a repeal is to address the contents of the target resolution.

And I can’t see that you’ve done that.

Nowhere in the rules it says proposals have to be of a certain length.

Zaberaz Hapang wrote:

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:What you personally believe doesn’t matter, it’s the rules that count and one of those for a repeal is to address the contents of the target resolution.

And I can’t see that you’ve done that.

Nowhere in the rules it says proposals have to be of a certain length.

He's referring to the rule that you have to address the target of the repeal in the repeal. See "relevant argument."

Jedinsto wrote:

Zaberaz Hapang wrote:Nowhere in the rules it says proposals have to be of a certain length.

He's referring to the rule that you have to address the target of the repeal in the repeal. See "relevant argument."

As I have already said, this proposal is a WIP, it isn't done.

While the intent of condemnation is to have a negative effect and encourage positive change, their are nations like the Black Hawks who will spin it into a positive. The fact they accomplished that goal is not a sufficient reason to repeal the condemnation IMO. The condemnation still serves a greater purpose to other nations and people who would be opposed to what they have been doing and aid in those entities being able to know what they have done and choose to avoid them. It is unfortunate that it also does the inverse, attracting other like minded nations to their support, however that is their choice and one we have to accept. Removing the condemnation will not change the minds of those who are attracted to the Black Hawks policies and methodology, rather it would only reduce information available to those who would disagree with their stances and ignorantly support them due to the condemnation not present to inform them of what they have done. I am in firm believe that a condemnation should only be applied in severe situations so that a condemnation has a strong meaning, and as such would normally support a repeal if it has merit, but the reasoning of this repeal lacks effective purpose and only would cause net harm. Sadly I have to say that if this was to come to vote, I would strongly dissent and vote against this.

Did some changes

N o .

Not even in the WA, and I say n o

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

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.

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

I want to make this a good, fleshed-out proposal, so I won't rush it, but I will do my best to not take a millennia.

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.