[DRAFT] Repeal: "Condemn the Black Hawks"

[Minskiev]

Hi. I'll need a legality check on the bullet point about Clause 2. Feedback is appreciated.

This repeal is purely quality-based.

The Security Council,

Noting The Black Hawks (TBH) to be a Condemnable raider organization,

Hoping for a long list of sensible, well-written Security Council resolutions in the future,

Believing, however, that this is unachievable while SC#52 is an active resolution, for the following reasons:

• SC#217 is a better-written resolution that condemns TBH for invading, delegate streak-breaking, espionage, and supporting coups, and leaves SC#52 unnecessary.
• Half of SC#52 focuses on something TBH in 2011 and prior didn't do.* More specifically, it talks about proposal raiding, a mild and commonly practiced (now as quorum raiding) form of raiding that merely bumps delegates voting on proposals temporarily, and one with a small effect on the chances of a proposal due to the limitations of what can be targeted. However, TBH didn't do such. Additionally, Condemns are often (and in this case, indeed) badges of honor to raiders, so the entire Concerned clause is irrelevant. Furthermore, "targeting" a region does not cool free speech, as the only senses of free speech in the SC are about discussing in the forums and writing proposals, which are completely unrelated to a region being targeted. Thus, TBH at the time of SC#52's passage did not "endanger the functioning and survival of the Security Council".
• The other half of SC#52 briefly discusses how TBH raids, or more specifically, "has targeted and raided hundreds of regions and used regional bans to exert their control," which is both uncondemnable and false. First, SC#52 doesn't define "targeted". Second, countless uncondemned regions have raided regions, some even more than what SC#52 mentions TBH doing as of its passing. Third, an overwhelming majority of regions have "used regional bans to exert their control," such as virtually every modern region. Fourth, if we condemned organizations for raiding a hundred regions, using the logic of SC#52, regions that defend a hundred regions would be commendable, when that is not the case. Fifth, the overwhelming majority of TBH's raids at the time were tag raids, which aren't permanent and don't use regional bans.
• Clause 4 of SC#52 is a nothing clause; it details an idea of somehow solo-commending a member of TBH, and an idea only, as it never reached quorum. Additionally, it uses "conspiring" which implies it being secret, yet it was public.
• Clause 2 mentions some weird and confusing language such as "surprisingly legal," "under-regulated," and "unsportsmanlike," seeming to refer to raiding as some exploit in the region system.

Disappointed that the standards for a condemnable raiding organization were once so low and that this proposal passed while treating "cooling" as plural, restating the title in the resolution to fluff it, using "concerned" and "noting" three times each because synonyms escaped the author, providing an argument against the proposal by mentioning how a vote for would get one's region attacked, and making up claims about targeting, permanently conquering, and threatening regions,

Hereby repeals: "Condemn The Black Hawks."

*to my knowledge (and to what New South Arctica has said at the time of the Condemn), there weren't any raids for the purpose of removing a delegate's vote on a proposal, (unless provoked?)

[Minskiev]

Reserved for future drafts if I bother ig

[Giovanniland]

Looks good at first sight, perhaps I'll have more comments later after reading more carefully, but one thing stood out for now that I wanted to comment about.

Aware of TBH's recent stagnation, one unfitting of an organization with two Condemnations, and disappointed that TBH can wear both its Condemnations with pride when one is far superior to the other,

I don't really like the argument of the first part of this clause, since it basically wants to repeal a condemnation because the target is inactive. If that were the case, we'd have to repeal every resolution once the target ceased to exist. In fact, Durkadurkiranistan II is a nation with two condemnations and happens to be CTE at the moment. I think the proposal has some good arguments earlier and this one just doesn't fit - so I'd remove it, as in my opinion repeals should happen because of proposal quality and not because the target is inactive.

[Tinhampton]

I don't really like the argument of the first part of this clause, since it basically wants to repeal a condemnation because the target is inactive.

The first letters of this proposal - which Minskiev says you should not "look at [...] owo" - literally read TBH IS DEAD. (They aren't: Liberal Democratic Union.)

Usually inclined to support any repeal of SC#52; not currently inclined to support what currently looks like a meme proposal on par with the ones that begin with "Noting amogus," never mine one which has been packed with a metric Kate Silverton of fluff in an attempt to poke fun at raiding as a discipline.

[Minskiev]

I don't really like the argument of the first part of this clause, since it basically wants to repeal a condemnation because the target is inactive.

The first letters of this proposal - which Minskiev says you should not "look at [...] owo" - literally read TBH IS DEAD. (They aren't: Liberal Democratic Union.)

Usually inclined to support any repeal of SC#52; not currently inclined to support what currently looks like a meme proposal on par with the ones that begin with "Noting amogus," never mine one which has been packed with a metric Kate Silverton of fluff in an attempt to poke fun at raiding as a discipline.

It's an actual proposal, no? It's also shorter (in clause count) than the proposal it's repealing.

Aware of TBH's recent stagnation, one unfitting of an organization with two Condemnations, and disappointed that TBH can wear both its Condemnations with pride when one is far superior to the other,

I don't really like the argument of the first part of this clause, since it basically wants to repeal a condemnation because the target is inactive. If that were the case, we'd have to repeal every resolution once the target ceased to exist. In fact, Durkadurkiranistan II is a nation with two condemnations and happens to be CTE at the moment. I think the proposal has some good arguments earlier and this one just doesn't fit - so I'd remove it, as in my opinion repeals should happen because of proposal quality and not because the target is inactive.

Hmm...yeah, fine.

[Miravana]

Believing The Black Hawks (TBH) to be a Condemnable raider organization,

Hoping for a long list full of sensible, well-written Security Council resolutions in the future

I'll be citing this if this passes. I agree better Condemns could be raided, so if this is going to an attempt (by admittedly a defender) to see future Condemns passed with good language then I support it. If not, this is just a way to mask the real intent many defenders may hold (not saying yourself) that they wish to strip us of a Second badge entirely.

Half of SC#52 focuses on quorum raiding, a mild and common form of raiding that merely bumps delegates approving proposals temporarily, that is not condemnable, as many regions do this,

This last part is unnecessary and wrong. Just because many regions do something does not make it Uncondemnable. There is, in fact, more than one Condemned region. I'd also argue that based on the controversy surrounding it, Quorum raiding is condemnable, look as far as the current SC proposal to see many believe it to be wrong, if not the majority.

[Lord Dominator]

Quorum raiding is not what 52 was Condemning - at the time it referred to the occasional practice of bumping delegates voting in a given direction on a resolution in favor of those voting the opposite direction (or not at all).

[Minskiev]

Quorum raiding is not what 52 was Condemning - at the time it referred to the occasional practice of bumping delegates voting in a given direction on a resolution in favor of those voting the opposite direction (or not at all).

Alright, that's an easy fix. Thanks.

Believing The Black Hawks (TBH) to be a Condemnable raider organization,

Hoping for a long list full of sensible, well-written Security Council resolutions in the future

I'll be citing this if this passes. I agree better Condemns could be raided, so if this is going to an attempt (by admittedly a defender) to see future Condemns passed with good language then I support it. If not, this is just a way to mask the real intent many defenders may hold (not saying yourself) that they wish to strip us of a Second badge entirely.

I try to not play the game too ICly; if all I wanted to do was take away your second badge, something that doesn't affect me whatsoever, I think I'd be more of an ass about it.

Half of SC#52 focuses on quorum raiding, a mild and common form of raiding that merely bumps delegates approving proposals temporarily, that is not condemnable, as many regions do this,

This last part is unnecessary and wrong. Just because many regions do something does not make it Uncondemnable. There is, in fact, more than one Condemned region. I'd also argue that based on the controversy surrounding it, Quorum raiding is condemnable, look as far as the current SC proposal to see many believe it to be wrong, if not the majority.

Condemnable =/= condemnable. I wouldn't Condemn the North Pacific for quorum raiding, but I suppose I'd condemn them.

[Outer Sparta]

Do you think there should be a replacement or should TBH be better off with having just one condemn badge? Last time I've seen this, a prior author made a draft that consisted of weak arguments like "raiders bad" and "they use it for propaganda." However, yours actually makes good arguments as to why SC52 should be repealed, which you definitely have something to work with here.

[Minskiev]

Do you think there should be a replacement or should TBH be better off with having just one condemn badge? Last time I've seen this, a prior author made a draft that consisted of weak arguments like "raiders bad" and "they use it for propaganda." However, yours actually makes good arguments as to why SC52 should be repealed, which you definitely have something to work with here.

I'm not sure if I'm one to really say how many badges an organization must have. Ideally, there would be one good proposal talking about TBH's earlier practices, and one good proposal talking about TBH's later practices.

[Otis Milburn]

I try to not play the game too ICly; if all I wanted to do was take away your second badge, something that doesn't affect me whatsoever, I think I'd be more of an ass about it.

It was more of a note for others in the future, not necessarily you

[Outer Sparta]

Do you think there should be a replacement or should TBH be better off with having just one condemn badge? Last time I've seen this, a prior author made a draft that consisted of weak arguments like "raiders bad" and "they use it for propaganda." However, yours actually makes good arguments as to why SC52 should be repealed, which you definitely have something to work with here.

I'm not sure if I'm one to really say how many badges an organization must have. Ideally, there would be one good proposal talking about TBH's earlier practices, and one good proposal talking about TBH's later practices.

I would say two condemn badges is what TBH ideally should have, but if an updated condemn on their earlier practices does well to replace the old condemn, I would happily support that. It would be unprecedented if they were to have three condemn badges, but that's only in extraordinary situations.

[Minskiev]

I try to not play the game too ICly; if all I wanted to do was take away your second badge, something that doesn't affect me whatsoever, I think I'd be more of an ass about it.

It was more of a note for others in the future, not necessarily you

Of course, no offense taken.

I'm not sure if I'm one to really say how many badges an organization must have. Ideally, there would be one good proposal talking about TBH's earlier practices, and one good proposal talking about TBH's later practices.

I would say two condemn badges is what TBH ideally should have, but if an updated condemn on their earlier practices does well to replace the old condemn, I would happily support that. It would be unprecedented if they were to have three condemn badges, but that's only in extraordinary situations.

Sure...I guess? Not sure why I quoted this. Alright.

[The Python]

[Snipped]

[Minskiev]

Which one?

Read the proposal, please. I made it excruciatingly obvious which one I'm repealing.

[Quebecshire]

Repealing one of their fancy little badges is hardly what in-character consequences the region deserves, but it's a start.

Support in principle, will try to have more constructive feedback later.

[Zukchiva]

I do not support this at its present state because a lot of it reads as "the stuff they did in 2011 is easy by modern standards, so this condemn should be repealled". I personally support the notion that much older resolutions shouldn't be repealed just because their quality is bad compared to today's standards, or the SC rules were different (re: your last clause in the Informed list).

That being said, I do think the argument that SC#52 is redundant due to SC#272 existing is a good argument. It can also be noted felt TBH wasn't truly condemnable in 2011, leading to the extremely close vote. So some mention of that concern could be made as well, I guess.

[Minskiev]

I do not support this at its present state because a lot of it reads as "the stuff they did in 2011 is easy by modern standards, so this condemn should be repealled". I personally support the notion that much older resolutions shouldn't be repealed just because their quality is bad compared to today's standards, or the SC rules were different (re: your last clause in the Informed list).

That being said, I do think the argument that SC#52 is redundant due to SC#272 existing is a good argument. It can also be noted felt TBH wasn't truly condemnable in 2011, leading to the extremely close vote. So some mention of that concern could be made as well, I guess.

Hm, seems undrafted as well.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Compared to other attempts to repeal this Condemnation, this draft actually produces some reasonable arguments for its removal.

However, SC#52 does fall into that class of resolutions I think of as low hanging fruit. Yes, it’s not well written, is too general in its description of Condemnable actions, but its not exceptionally bad and no worse than many of its contemporaries.

Do TBH deserve two badges? My opinion is yes, whatever the state of play is at the moment. So, no support from me.

[Kryfardo]

The Security Council,

Believing The Black Hawks (TBH) to be a Condemnable raider organization,

Hoping for a long list full of sensible, well-written Security Council resolutions in the future,

I’m not surprised to see this, since it seems like easy enough badgehunting and someone shows up to say “217 was better so give me the badge” every few years or so.

Informed, however, that this is unachievable while SC#52 is an active resolution, for the following reasons:
[list][*]SC#217 is a better-written resolution that condemns TBH for invading, delegate streak-breaking, espionage, and supporting coups, and leaves SC#52 unnecessary,

SC#217 was not meant to replace #52. #52 is unique in that it condemns raiding as a whole, and for being rather general instead of focussing on TBH’s actions specifically.

[*]Half of SC#52 focuses on proposal raiding, a mild and commonly practiced (as quorum raiding) form of raiding that merely bumps delegates voting on proposals temporarily, and one with a small effect on the chances of a proposal due to the limitations of what can be targeted,

Did you read the resolution at all? Quorum raiding didn’t exist back then, and the resolution didn’t mention it. Perhaps you got confused by “targeting delegates”?

[*]The other half of SC#52 briefly discusses how TBH raids, or more specifically, "has targeted and raided hundreds of regions and used regional bans to exert their control," which is uncondemnable as SC#52 doesn't define "targeted" and leaves it incredibly vague. Additionally, countless uncondemned regions have raided regions, some even more than what SC#52 mentions TBH doing as of its passing. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of regions have "used regional bans to exert their control," including every modern region except the Rejected Realms and perhaps a few rare cases.

This is a blob of vaguely related arguments with a random recruitment shoutout for TRR thrown in.

Furthermore, if we condemned organizations for raiding a hundred regions, a feat achievable in a single night, using the logic of SC#52, regions that defend a hundred regions, again a feat that's been accomplished both countless times as well as in just a night, would be commendable, when that is not the case,

This is incoherent, applies a modern standard scripts and all to 2011, and is altogether confusingly worded.

“Clause 2 mentions some weird and confusing language such as "surprisingly legal," "under-regulated," and "unsportsmanlike," seeming to refer to raiding as some exploit that's a part of a game,

Not sure how you missed it, but raiding absolutely originated from an exploit.

A poor badge-hunting attempt altogether.

[Minskiev]

The Security Council,

Believing The Black Hawks (TBH) to be a Condemnable raider organization,

Hoping for a long list full of sensible, well-written Security Council resolutions in the future,

I’m not surprised to see this, since it seems like easy enough badgehunting and someone shows up to say “217 was better so give me the badge” every few years or so.

But...I already have the badge? Also not sure why you're addressing a preamble when you seem to be talking about my entire proposal.

Informed, however, that this is unachievable while SC#52 is an active resolution, for the following reasons:
[list][*]SC#217 is a better-written resolution that condemns TBH for invading, delegate streak-breaking, espionage, and supporting coups, and leaves SC#52 unnecessary,

SC#217 was not meant to replace #52. #52 is unique in that it condemns raiding as a whole, and for being rather general instead of focussing on TBH’s actions specifically.

Sure, it says that raiding is condemnable....ok? It definitely does focus on TBH's actions, also. I'm not sure what you're on about.

[*]Half of SC#52 focuses on proposal raiding, a mild and commonly practiced (as quorum raiding) form of raiding that merely bumps delegates voting on proposals temporarily, and one with a small effect on the chances of a proposal due to the limitations of what can be targeted,

Did you read the resolution at all? Quorum raiding didn’t exist back then, and the resolution didn’t mention it. Perhaps you got confused by “targeting delegates”?

Guess I wasn't clear then. LD pointed out that the resolution was referring to proposal/vote raiding. I was mentioning how its successor, quorum raiding, is commonly practiced and in my opinion not Condemnable. Quite a boring potshot this is.

[*]The other half of SC#52 briefly discusses how TBH raids, or more specifically, "has targeted and raided hundreds of regions and used regional bans to exert their control," which is uncondemnable as SC#52 doesn't define "targeted" and leaves it incredibly vague. Additionally, countless uncondemned regions have raided regions, some even more than what SC#52 mentions TBH doing as of its passing. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of regions have "used regional bans to exert their control," including every modern region except the Rejected Realms and perhaps a few rare cases.

This is a blob of vaguely related arguments with a random recruitment shoutout for TRR thrown in.

I wasn't intending it to be a shoutout for TRR. I also think these arguments are rather related, considering they're all talking about the same piece of text.

Furthermore, if we condemned organizations for raiding a hundred regions, a feat achievable in a single night, using the logic of SC#52, regions that defend a hundred regions, again a feat that's been accomplished both countless times as well as in just a night, would be commendable, when that is not the case,

This is incoherent, applies a modern standard scripts and all to 2011, and is altogether confusingly worded.

Hmm, maybe I should clean it up a little. But alright alright, I'll take out the single night bits since you and others have asked for it.

“Clause 2 mentions some weird and confusing language such as "surprisingly legal," "under-regulated," and "unsportsmanlike," seeming to refer to raiding as some exploit that's a part of a game,

Not sure how you missed it, but raiding absolutely originated from an exploit.

??? if this is ironic then you should really know that's subjective, and if it isn't, I suggest you learn about little things known as jokes.

A poor badge-hunting attempt altogether.

A poor deconstructing attempt altogether, if you ask me.

[Team Lennox]

Compared to other attempts to repeal this Condemnation, this draft actually produces some reasonable arguments for its removal.

However, SC#52 does fall into that class of resolutions I think of as low hanging fruit. Yes, it’s not well written, is too general in its description of Condemnable actions, but its not exceptionally bad and no worse than many of its contemporaries.

Do TBH deserve two badges? My opinion is yes, whatever the state of play is at the moment. So, no support from me.

Tbh I think one is enough. TBH have a history of raiding many regions (escpecially those that are my embassies and allies) and wear their condemnations with pride (the so many evil things TBH has done). But hey it my opinion yk.

[WayNeacTia]

Reads like a badge hunt to me.

[Flanderlion]

I'm for. As the pre-eminent raiding org (or actually likely that's LWU now), they've managed to mismanage raiding to such a state that defenders don't even need to try. In a time where every other group (including imps) have upped their game in the last 5 years, they have sucked out the talent from other raiding orgs, haven't helped new raiding orgs to the same extent as prior groups, fostered division between raiding groups, recruited many noobs and mismanaged them into losing interest in raiding.

[Great Algerstonia]

Support, although there is a few flaws with the draft that ought to be fixed.

The other half of SC#52 briefly discusses how TBH raids, or more specifically, "has targeted and raided hundreds of regions and used regional bans to exert their control," which is uncondemnable as SC#52 doesn't define "targeted" and leaves it incredibly vague. Additionally, countless uncondemned regions have raided regions, some even more than what SC#52 mentions TBH doing as of its passing. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of regions have "used regional bans to exert their control," including every modern region except the Rejected Realms and perhaps a few rare cases. Furthermore, if we condemned organizations for raiding a hundred regions, using the logic of SC#52, regions that defend a hundred regions would be commendable, when that is not the case,

This bullet point reads far too long. Not really concise.

Exceedingly disappointed that the standards for a condemnable raiding organization were once so low and that this proposal passed while treating "cooling" as plural, restating the title in the resolution to fluff it, using "concerned" and "noting" three times each because synonyms escaped the author, and providing an argument against the proposal by mentioning how a vote for would get one's region attacked,

Can't say I really like this clause as this sets a precedent for repealing old resolutions due to poor writing compared to modern standards. I'd recommend removing this one.