[DRAFT] Repeal: "Condemn the Black Hawks"

[Minskiev]

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.

Sure it's long. Is that really a problem?

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.

...writing standards haven't, or at least shouldn't have, been raised over the past 10 years. "Modern standards" for writing are the same ones as 10 years ago. This isn't a valid counterpoint, imo. I think there should be a precedent for improving the quality of resolutions.

[Zukchiva]

...writing standards haven't, or at least shouldn't have, been raised over the past 10 years. "Modern standards" for writing are the same ones as 10 years ago. This isn't a valid counterpoint, imo. I think there should be a precedent for improving the quality of resolutions.

As a note, things like position listing, fluff, ambiguity, and lack of elaboration are very much present in many 2011-2013 C/C resolutions (including #52), but anyone whose C/C draft has those aspects today typically sees their draft do really poorly at vote. Even more recent resolutions, like from 2017, are often not as detailed as modern 2020 or 2021 resolutions.

So in other words, the writing standards for SC Resolutions have already increased Whether they should have is up to personal opinion, but fact is they definitely have risen to expect more detail and elaboration than in the past.

[Morover]

I don't agree with a lot of the author's points (I'll try and give some feedback later), but can we please stop the ridiculous badge-hunting accusations? It is an excuse to oppose anything you don't like while avoiding saying you don't like it and in lieu of actual criticism. Minsk is not badge hunting here, regardless of whether or not this is proposal can/should pass.

[Sedgistan]

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

For the record, that would be:

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,

...which would be a Rule 2a violation. You'll need to change this.

[Minskiev]

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

For the record, that would be:

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,

...which would be a Rule 2a violation. You'll need to change this.

Yeah, thought so. Heh.

Edit: is it still illegal? Changed "exploit in a game" to "exploit in the region system."

[Minskiev]

Bump, I guess.

[WayNeacTia]

I personally believe the Hawks have earned both of those condemnations. They were and still are the preeminent raiding force in the game. The fact they were able to do that, all while staying within the rules says much about them as an organization. On top of that, they are a great group of people, and having two of their members become moderators proves that point. They raid a region, throw a party and then leave. Plus without them, Tim would be bored. For that I will have to oppose this.

[Thousand Branches]

Is the plan for this to R&R or just a simple repeal? I’d be curious to see a more modern condemn for TBH

[Minskiev]

Is the plan for this to R&R or just a simple repeal? I’d be curious to see a more modern condemn for TBH

I was considering a replace, actually. I think another condemn based on 2005-2015 2017-2021 TBH would be interesting.

[Thousand Branches]

Is the plan for this to R&R or just a simple repeal? I’d be curious to see a more modern condemn for TBH

I was considering a replace, actually. I think another condemn based on 2005-2015 2017-2021 TBH would be interesting.

If it was well researched and well written I’d be very excited to see something like that. I definitely like the flavor of TBH’s two condemns, it’d be even cooler if they both felt legit. ^-^

[Minskiev]

I was considering a replace, actually. I think another condemn based on 2005-2015 2017-2021 TBH would be interesting.

If it was well researched and well written I’d be very excited to see something like that. I definitely like the flavor of TBH’s two condemns, it’d be even cooler if they both felt legit. ^-^

Yeah, I'm just trying to get some data.

[Minskiev]

Will bump.

[Quebecshire]

Kind of opposed, as if this is repealed, I don't care to see it replaced. I don't see the point in repealing it if we're going to replace it.

[Minskiev]

Kind of opposed, as if this is repealed, I don't care to see it replaced. I don't see the point in repealing it if we're going to replace it.

Really taking that switch to TGW to heart

I'm not sure if I'd be qualified to write a replacement. Although I will support (some) efforts to do so.

[Quebecshire]

Kind of opposed, as if this is repealed, I don't care to see it replaced. I don't see the point in repealing it if we're going to replace it.

Really taking that switch to TGW to heart

I've been of the opinion that we shouldn't give badges to raiders (at the very least, raider organizations as prolific as TBH) since before I switched to TGW, which was, uh, like 5 or 6 hours ago?

Regardless, I'd rather not feed their nonsense by reinstating the second badge.

[Minskiev]

Really taking that switch to TGW to heart

I've been of the opinion that we shouldn't give badges to raiders (at the very least, raider organizations as prolific as TBH) since before I switched to TGW, which was, uh, like 5 or 6 hours ago?

Regardless, I'd rather not feed their nonsense by reinstating the second badge.

Okay, but this is the repeal thread. Do you have any feedback on that?

[The Python]

Really taking that switch to TGW to heart :lol:

I've been of the opinion that we shouldn't give badges to raiders (at the very least, raider organizations as prolific as TBH) since before I switched to TGW, which was, uh, like 5 or 6 hours ago?

Wait, did you join TGW? :eyes:

Regardless, I strongly disagree with the "Raiders bad so we shouldn't condemn them" philosophy. If someone plays the bad side, they can have it; it's just silly to not recognise your enemies. That said, what I do oppose is commending raiders because it paints raiding as a positive contribution.

[Flanderlion]

Kind of opposed, as if this is repealed, I don't care to see it replaced. I don't see the point in repealing it if we're going to replace it.

Be for the repeal, and against a replace like me. Authors often intend to repeal and replace then discover the sentiment is purely for a repeal.

[WayNeacTia]

Really taking that switch to TGW to heart

I've been of the opinion that we shouldn't give badges to raiders (at the very least, raider organizations as prolific as TBH) since before I switched to TGW, which was, uh, like 5 or 6 hours ago?

Regardless, I'd rather not feed their nonsense by reinstating the second badge.

Wow….. I never thought I would hear a moralist defender announce themselves so loudly.

[Minskiev]

Will be bumping. If you don't have anything to say about what can be improved with the proposal, say nothing! Because I don't really care otherwise.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Will be bumping. If you don't have anything to say about what can be improved with the proposal, say nothing! Because I don't really care otherwise.

Not a particularly good attitude for an author.

[Great Algerstonia]

Is the plan for this to R&R or just a simple repeal? I’d be curious to see a more modern condemn for TBH

I was considering a replace, actually. I think another condemn based on 2005-2015 2017-2021 TBH would be interesting.

This now makes me oppose this proposal.

[Minskiev]

Will be bumping. If you don't have anything to say about what can be improved with the proposal, say nothing! Because I don't really care otherwise.

Not a particularly good attitude for an author.

Sure, but I'd like actual feedback.

[Team Lennox]

Reads like a badge hunt to me.

No, this is a fight for justice in the NS universe!

[Praeceps]

While I would typically support a repeal of the target given how badly written it is, the author's attitude is rather offputting.