[DRAFT] Repeal "Condemn Blackhelm Confederacy"

[Outer Sparta]

Maybe look into the context of the condemnation and see the circumstances of its passage. That might get you a more accurate picture of what things were like back in the day and what Blackhelm Confederacy did.

I did. How many freaking times do I have to say I read the original SC thread and the provided evidence? Christ on a goddamn bike people!

You do that but then go on a ramble about the listed amounts of SC resolutions that seemingly detract from your overall point. I don't see why including all of them is necessary.

[Kylia Quilor]

I can read a roleplay thread and judge the merits of relative sins.

And while I don't roleplay on NS, I do roleplay. Including Nation roleplay.

The three NS role players who commented in this thread all said he was deserving. You might need a stronger argument than you just don’t feel it’s enough.

Edit: That being said, I see where you’re coming from, and don’t mean to discredit your opinion or knowledge of roleplay. I’m just not convinced, and I don’t think others will be.

And their opinions are one of the reasons why I decided - as I acknowledged could be the case at the start - to reconsider this repeal and whether or not my aesthetic issues with the original resolution (my biggest reason to want it repealed, I'll be honest) bother me enough to attempt to write a better condemnation. I have yet to make that determination.

I did. How many freaking times do I have to say I read the original SC thread and the provided evidence? Christ on a goddamn bike people!

You do that but then go on a ramble about the listed amounts of SC resolutions that seemingly detract from your overall point. I don't see why including all of them is necessary.

The idea was establishing the strong precedent that resolutions condemning/commending people that didn't really merit it (or at least the resolution made a poor case of it) or were otherwise poorly written exists. As I acknowledged a bit earlier in this thread, I also admit that I went overboard on that front - I went hunting to find every example I could of resolutions that supported my case, as I think the power of longstanding precedent matters here, and then mentioned them all in the resolution, which was probably excessive. (I could have just mentioned a few and used language like 'among others')

None of that changes the fact that before I did anything else, the first thing I did was read the original thread and the evidence. I just (personally) didn't find it convincing, which is why I decided to write this repeal in the first place.

[Kylia Quilor]

I made this decision a few days ago, but health issues prevented me from posting.

Regardless - I have decided that I dislike this original resolution enough to make an effort to propose a fresh condemnation, using the evidence provided in the original SC thread, and repeal the original (with an updated and improved version of this repeal).

I'm not sure exactly when the new condemnation will be written, though it should be soonish, but I'm going to make sure I have that written up before revisiting this repeal.

[Outer Sparta]

I made this decision a few days ago, but health issues prevented me from posting.

Regardless - I have decided that I dislike this original resolution enough to make an effort to propose a fresh condemnation, using the evidence provided in the original SC thread, and repeal the original (with an updated and improved version of this repeal).

I'm not sure exactly when the new condemnation will be written, though it should be soonish, but I'm going to make sure I have that written up before revisiting this repeal.

A refreshened repeal draft could be better, but you still have to make your case, especially to those in the RP community, that Blackhelm Confederacy is not condemnable. That being said, I am still taking an opposition stance.

[Kylia Quilor]

You didn't even read my post, you unutterable illiterate. I specifically said I'm going to propose a fresh condemnation in addition to a reworked repeal.

EDIT: Given the endlessly repeated bad faith, reading comprehension fails on your part, Outer Sparta, I will no longer be engaging with anything you say. Because I've repeated myself enough times on you.

[Lenlyvit]

If it were me I would write a new complementary condemnation to go with the old proposal, and leave the old proposal on the books. This way you'll definitely receive more support for your condemnation proposal, you won't irk anyone by trying to repeal the old one, and the role play community won't oppose your attempts.

[Outer Sparta]

If it were me I would write a new complementary condemnation to go with the old proposal, and leave the old proposal on the books. This way you'll definitely receive more support for your condemnation proposal, you won't irk anyone by trying to repeal the old one, and the role play community won't oppose your attempts.

Didn't they do that before they repealed SC1, Condemn Macedon? I specifically remember them making a refreshed condemnation and then repealing the original.

[Farnhamia]

You didn't even read my post, you unutterable illiterate. I specifically said I'm going to propose a fresh condemnation in addition to a reworked repeal.

EDIT: Given the endlessly repeated bad faith, reading comprehension fails on your part, Outer Sparta, I will no longer be engaging with anything you say. Because I've repeated myself enough times on you.

*** Warned for flaming ***

[Lenlyvit]

If it were me I would write a new complementary condemnation to go with the old proposal, and leave the old proposal on the books. This way you'll definitely receive more support for your condemnation proposal, you won't irk anyone by trying to repeal the old one, and the role play community won't oppose your attempts.

Didn't they do that before they repealed SC1, Condemn Macedon? I specifically remember them making a refreshed condemnation and then repealing the original.

The replacement was mine, the repeal partially mine. And it's something I've regretted doing since.

[Kylia Quilor]

If it were me I would write a new complementary condemnation to go with the old proposal, and leave the old proposal on the books. This way you'll definitely receive more support for your condemnation proposal, you won't irk anyone by trying to repeal the old one, and the role play community won't oppose your attempts.

Okay, I think you're misunderstanding the entire point of the exercise here. At least in terms of what is motivating me.

Taking the old resolution off the books is the entire point for me. The only reason I am contemplating writing a replacement condemnation based on decade old evidence in the first place is to accede to the arguments made by roleplayers here that, irrespective of the text of the resolution itself, for historical and OOC reasons, Blackhelm Confederacy deserves a condemnation.

Further, unless the SC changed the rules while I wasn't looking, which is possible, you can't condemn a nation for the same thing twice (at least if the original condemnation is still active), and since all I'll be doing is endeavoring to write a resolution that does the job of original, but (in theory) better, I would run afoul of that rule

So, what I am aiming to do here is
1. Write a better condemnation so that people can see I have it in hand to present once the original is repealed
2. Write an updated and improved version of the repeal I've already drafted (Admittedly, significantly altered, as there are several obvious areas for improvement)
3. Repeal the old resolution
4. Replace it with the new, better one.

[Lenlyvit]

If it were me I would write a new complementary condemnation to go with the old proposal, and leave the old proposal on the books. This way you'll definitely receive more support for your condemnation proposal, you won't irk anyone by trying to repeal the old one, and the role play community won't oppose your attempts.

Okay, I think you're misunderstanding the entire point of the exercise here. At least in terms of what is motivating me.

Taking the old resolution off the books is the entire point for me. The only reason I am contemplating writing a replacement condemnation based on decade old evidence in the first place is to accede to the arguments made by roleplayers here that, irrespective of the text of the resolution itself, for historical and OOC reasons, Blackhelm Confederacy deserves a condemnation.

Further, unless the SC changed the rules while I wasn't looking, which is possible, you can't condemn a nation for the same thing twice (at least if the original condemnation is still active), and since all I'll be doing is endeavoring to write a resolution that does the job of original, but (in theory) better, I would run afoul of that rule

So, what I am aiming to do here is
1. Write a better condemnation so that people can see I have it in hand to present once the original is repealed
2. Write an updated and improved version of the repeal I've already drafted (Admittedly, significantly altered, as there are several obvious areas for improvement)
3. Repeal the old resolution
4. Replace it with the new, better one.

No, I'm not misunderstanding anything. I entirely get your motivation because I've been following this thread since you posted it. Your motivation behind this is to repeal the original one because it is aesthetically displeasing to you and you alone. Not to the RP community, not to the nominee, but to you. And this is perfectly okay. However, I am trying to give you advice.

Your interpretation of the rules is correct in one way, but off in another. Since the old condemnations are filled with giant holes and not as detailed as current ones it is entirely possible to pass a new condemnation containing some of the same content. As long as the new resolution holds more detail, and goes more in-depth, it will pass the mod check and can be voted upon.

This has been the case in the new condemnation of both Macedon and Durkadurkiranistan II, where both new proposals were passed while the old ones were still in place. In fact, Durkadurkiranistan II still has both the original and the new resolution in place which is what I personally think should be done for Blackhelm Confederacy.

[Tinhampton]

MM intended to repeal the original Condemn JAL but ultimately decided against doing so.

I will be making no further comment about this proposed repeal - save to note the omission of a comma at the beginning of its first clause - until Kylia puts her replacement/new Condemn Blackhelm Confederacy up.

[Wallenburg]

The only argument this repeal makes is "Blackhelm Confederacy didn't do much and has CTE'd". That's not much to go on, and it certainly isn't the mark of a quality resolution that I could write your same argument but with only two or three clauses. Explain to us why the nominee's history of endless warfare and its liberal use of violence and cruelty toward civilians both foreign and domestic isn't merit for a condemnation.

[Outer Sparta]

Okay, I think you're misunderstanding the entire point of the exercise here. At least in terms of what is motivating me.

Taking the old resolution off the books is the entire point for me. The only reason I am contemplating writing a replacement condemnation based on decade old evidence in the first place is to accede to the arguments made by roleplayers here that, irrespective of the text of the resolution itself, for historical and OOC reasons, Blackhelm Confederacy deserves a condemnation.

Further, unless the SC changed the rules while I wasn't looking, which is possible, you can't condemn a nation for the same thing twice (at least if the original condemnation is still active), and since all I'll be doing is endeavoring to write a resolution that does the job of original, but (in theory) better, I would run afoul of that rule

So, what I am aiming to do here is
1. Write a better condemnation so that people can see I have it in hand to present once the original is repealed
2. Write an updated and improved version of the repeal I've already drafted (Admittedly, significantly altered, as there are several obvious areas for improvement)
3. Repeal the old resolution
4. Replace it with the new, better one.

No, I'm not misunderstanding anything. I entirely get your motivation because I've been following this thread since you posted it. Your motivation behind this is to repeal the original one because it is aesthetically displeasing to you and you alone. Not to the RP community, not to the nominee, but to you. And this is perfectly okay. However, I am trying to give you advice.

Your interpretation of the rules is correct in one way, but off in another. Since the old condemnations are filled with giant holes and not as detailed as current ones it is entirely possible to pass a new condemnation containing some of the same content. As long as the new resolution holds more detail, and goes more in-depth, it will pass the mod check and can be voted upon.

This has been the case in the new condemnation of both Macedon and Durkadurkiranistan II, where both new proposals were passed while the old ones were still in place. In fact, Durkadurkiranistan II still has both the original and the new resolution in place which is what I personally think should be done for Blackhelm Confederacy.

Interesting that Durka has two condemnations with the updated one being nine years later and the old one not repealed.

[Wallenburg]

The only reason I am contemplating writing a replacement condemnation based on decade old evidence in the first place is to accede to the arguments made by roleplayers here that, irrespective of the text of the resolution itself, for historical and OOC reasons, Blackhelm Confederacy deserves a condemnation.
...
4. Replace it with the new, better one.

You cannot C&C an ex-nation.

[Outer Sparta]

The only reason I am contemplating writing a replacement condemnation based on decade old evidence in the first place is to accede to the arguments made by roleplayers here that, irrespective of the text of the resolution itself, for historical and OOC reasons, Blackhelm Confederacy deserves a condemnation.
...
4. Replace it with the new, better one.

You cannot C&C an ex-nation.

In that case, a replacement condemnation cannot work, which is what many people advocate for in this thread.

[Tinhampton]

Blackhelm Confederacy does log into their nation every now and again, as far as I recall - just not very recently

[Nationalist Northumbria]

Support to send a message. There are more active and more recent roleplayers, such as myself, who I could argue are more deserving of condemnations. We are at the same standards as these roleplayers were when they received their commendations and condemnations; the only reason to refuse them to us is out of a double standard of snobbery, and this needs to be recognised.

[Great Algerstonia]

Against

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

Support to send a message. There are more active and more recent roleplayers, such as myself, who I could argue are more deserving of condemnations. We are at the same standards as these roleplayers were when they received their commendations and condemnations; the only reason to refuse them to us is out of a double standard of snobbery, and this needs to be recognised.

Your typical RP post

BC's typical RP post

Yeah, these two things are not the same.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

While the original Condemnation is not Shakespeare, it is of a standard that was deemed acceptable at the time of its writing.

I will not support a repeal just because you find the writing aesthetically displeasing.

[Electrum]

We are at the same standards as these roleplayers were when they received their commendations and condemnations

If you are going to make statements like that, you need to evidence them -- otherwise you come across as self serving, which is what Mad Jack showed.

You can see BKC's posts in II here. You can repeat the search with your nation's name and form your own value judgements.

The standards of the Security Council (and who gets commended or condemned) are informed by those who take the time to research and draft resolutions. Unfortunately the overlap between roleplay and World Assembly has been and is still very small. For example, there's been years long gaps between different resolutions for NS Sports -- I've tried to push along some very overdue ones from people who have roleplayed for more than fifteen years on this site. Add onto that the fact that most roleplay tends to be fragmented (such as those in II or NationStates) by region (which means less visibility) means that you have a recipe for fewer resolutions to roleplayers than what otherwise might be considered their fair share -- not due to a 'double standard of snobbery'.

If you truly think someone should be recognised, it is up to you to do that. I took that same advice four years ago.

[Nationalist Northumbria]

Support to send a message. There are more active and more recent roleplayers, such as myself, who I could argue are more deserving of condemnations. We are at the same standards as these roleplayers were when they received their commendations and condemnations; the only reason to refuse them to us is out of a double standard of snobbery, and this needs to be recognised.

Your typical RP post

BC's typical RP post

Yeah, these two things are not the same.

My philosophy when writing RP posts is quality over quantity.

This is what BC's typical RP posts looked like at the time of the condemnation, btw, for both you and Electrum. As I said: we are at the same standards as these roleplayers were when they received their commendations and condemnations; the only reason to refuse them to us is out of a double standard of snobbery, and this needs to be recognised.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

Your typical RP post

BC's typical RP post

Yeah, these two things are not the same.

My philosophy when writing RP posts is quality over quantity.

You demonstrate neither.

This is what BC's typical RP posts looked like at the time of the condemnation, btw, for both you and Electrum. As I said: we are at the same standards as these roleplayers were when they received their commendations and condemnations; the only reason to refuse them to us is out of a double standard of snobbery, and this needs to be recognised.

There are plenty of examples of better posts than the one you just posted from around the time and regardless of any of that, even that post you linked is better than anything you appear to have posted in these forums.

To move this back on topic, I look forward to seeing any proposed replacement.

[Wallenburg]

To move this back on topic, I look forward to seeing any proposed replacement.

Again, replacement is not possible for ex-nations.