[DRAFT] Repeal: "Condemn the Black Hawks"

[Comfed]

Cormac made a valid and polite point about TBH and their Condemnation and you snark back? Pro-tip: leave the snark to those who can do it well, you just sound petulant.

I wish to reiterate that the first letters of each of the clauses literally spell out TBH IS DEAD.

Oh, you’re literally right. Weird.

[WayNeacTia]

I wish to reiterate that the first letters of each of the clauses literally spell out TBH IS DEAD.

Oh, you’re literally right. Weird.

Henceforth why the draft is shit. When you have to shoehorn clauses in just to be edgy, this is what you wind up with.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

I wish to reiterate that the first letters of each of the clauses literally spell out TBH IS DEAD.

Oh, you’re literally right. Weird.

Acrostics in SC resolutions were an old trick of DEN’s if I remember correctly. They weren’t funny then and they’re not funny now.

[Great Algerstonia]

Prompted a chuckle out of me.

[Minskiev]

First of all, I apologize for the TBH is dead thing. It was an awful joke that undermined my proposal and my credibility and quite frankly I'd be far better off if I never made it. But I did. Unfortunately.

Edit: I'll also be replacing this condemn.

Am I being belligerent? I didn't think I was...

Tone down the snark and people may rethink their positions? Just spitballing.......

Alright, I apologize. I was being too much.

There were points raised by others, not just Rider and Wayne, about the author's attitude in asking for advice. If people tell you your draft is full of filler and you don't make the necessary changes, then that's not good.

Well, I made the "TBH is Dead" joke like 3 weeks ago and I fluffed the proposal to make it knew it'd come back to bite me. Removed, and sorry.

Oh, alright then. Shelving this proposal. I'm sorry, O great Cormactopia Prime. I hope you can forgive me.

Is your attitude always this lousy? Syl has been right in her warnings; I'm mostly retired, but I'll be sure to make a point to log in and vote against anything you author whenever I notice it's up for vote. This much attitude because people don't like your fluff, filler proposal to repeal a deserved condemnation of a region that has contributed years worth of activity to gameplay is just totally uncalled for and is undermining not only this proposal, but all proposals you author.

If you don't want to hear "voting against your fluff proposal," don't write fluff proposals. If you want to go for an easy badge, don't try to go for The Black Hawks' condemnation. I see from your other current proposal that you're a fan of going for the low hanging fruit, and I'm sure you think with The Black Hawks in disfavor with so many major gameplay regions right now their condemnation is low hanging fruit you can convert into a nice, warm badge pie, but don't be surprised when people call you on it. The Black Hawks have actually contributed something to gameplay; your fluff proposals aren't contributing anything of value to anything.

I'm not saying TBH isn't condemnable. There's already a condemnation of TBH, however, and you must admit that SC#52 is terribly written. I'd be willing to put the work in to give them another condemn. I simply do not believe in "if it gets them a badge it gets them a badge". If the resolution sucks then I support replacing it.

And to your "TBH is in disfavor with so many major gameplay regions" point...what? Do you mean "defender regions don't like TBH because it's raider," "TBH tricked TEP," or anything like that? Because if you ask me that makes them even more condemnable. I'm not saying TBH hasn't contributed to gameplay at all. I just like seeing good arguments behind SC resolutions of worthy targets.

Oh, alright then. Shelving this proposal. I'm sorry, O great Cormactopia Prime. I hope you can forgive me.

Cormac made a valid and polite point about TBH and their Condemnation and you snark back? Pro-tip: leave the snark to those who can do it well, you just sound petulant.

...yeah. Yeah. My bad.

[Concrete Slab]

When should we expect this to be submitted?

[Minskiev]

When should we expect this to be submitted?

Erm...yeah, so, you see...it's a bit of a mess currently. I'd say maybe within the next week?

[Refuge Isle]

If it were a true repeal and replace, it would be nonsensical to submit this resolution before a replacement is developed. From what posts I've seen here so far, I would surmise that the author has not even begun research into the facts and history of that era. If a replacement happens later, the author believes that's fine, but it's not their responsibility. So, de facto, it's just a repeal operating in isolation.

The complaints are mechanical, the effects are political, and the author is pretending as though the political consequences do not exist or can be addressed later. It is not so.

Some in the defender community view the resolution positively, as one likely made in earnest and critical of raider activities, written by a native and not a GP personality. Some view the resolution as acceptable in terms of quality, for its passage at the time and, likewise, a snapshot of the era. I presume most in the raiding community would view it positively as just another badge of honour, perhaps with a certain irony that TBH holds both a condemnation written as a criticism and another written as a congratulation.

Removing the resolution does not satisfy any of those ideological positions. Suggesting it should be replaced will receive pushback from those who feel raiders ought not to be celebrated. All parties seem likely to be alienated by this draft, which leaves us with a lingering question of "Why are we here?"

[Minskiev]

If it were a true repeal and replace, it would be nonsensical to submit this resolution before a replacement is developed. From what posts I've seen here so far, I would surmise that the author has not even begun research into the facts and history of that era. If a replacement happens later, the author believes that's fine, but it's not their responsibility. So, de facto, it's just a repeal operating in isolation.

True, that's why I won't be submitting this until I draft, submit, and am happy with a replacement. Although my apologies - I should edit out the "near submission" bit.

The complaints are mechanical, the effects are political, and the author is pretending as though the political consequences do not exist or can be addressed later. It is not so.

Some in the defender community view the resolution positively, as one likely made in earnest and critical of raider activities, written by a native and not a GP personality. Some view the resolution as acceptable in terms of quality, for its passage at the time and, likewise, a snapshot of the era. I presume most in the raiding community would view it positively as just another badge of honour, perhaps with a certain irony that TBH holds both a condemnation written as a criticism and another written as a congratulation.

So...alright, some defenders like a resolution by a native (?) that criticizes raiders...and? It doesn't really make a good argument for it. Plus, "a snapshot of the era" - you will always be able to look at it repealed or unrepealed. And to "some view"; I'm more curious as to whether you view it as such because generally, I agree with your opinions, and I want to hear them.

Removing the resolution does not satisfy any of those ideological positions. Suggesting it should be replaced will receive pushback from those who feel raiders ought not to be celebrated. All parties seem likely to be alienated by this draft, which leaves us with a lingering question of "Why are we here?"

Is removing a Condemn and adding it back again effectively not a return to the status quo? And while yes, some raiders may oppose the repeal and some defenders the replace, I can only hope that people let me follow through (if i cared enough to want the badge gone for a longer period i'd act like it). And I think I wouldn't be "celebrating raiders" in the IC sense at least both with the replace's wording and the intent.

[Refuge Isle]

And to "some view"; I'm more curious as to whether you view it as such because generally, I agree with your opinions, and I want to hear them.

I think I rather gave it when you asked in Libcord.

Although it was not always so, and certainly things were perceived differently when your target was written in 2011, commendations and condemnations are viewed as awards. Awards for having carried out an appropriate level of impact playing the hero or the villain of NationStates. In that mindset, it's very unusual to take away an award that's already given out. Do insta-repeals still happen for resolutions argued to be passed by unjustified populism? Yes, that's still a thing. Repeals of targets that believed to not deserve the award or where the award doesn't make the case? :ItIsSo:. Repeals where the target is factually inaccurate? Yes, even this is within recent and relevant politics.

For repeals of long-past resolutions where the target's writing isn't good enough but the target is still considered deserving? That's harder to come by. The closest we reasonably have is Repeal Macedon, where even Lenly would later say that was a mistake. Ironically, we also have Commend Kuriko, which was repealed on request of the target itself. It seems unlikely that's what's happening here.

So, it largely comes down to a difference in perspectives. What is the purpose of a C&C? Is it to just issue the award and perform the function of commending or condemning or is it to pin a biography? In practicality, it's not viable to say that resolutions must be updated with modern standards because there's no real end point for where you go with that. The contents of a player or region's contributions can change, numbers can become obsolete, referenced regions can die, events can be overshadowed. Should you update for each? Should you be in a constant state of reevaluating if something is worth it? Generally it seems not, and it's unlikely we would end up with double commendations/condemnations if we did.

My personal position on the subject is that it's very strange that someone would repeal an award (even if they had the intention of replacing it) where voters were satisfied, the issuing party was satisfied, the receiving party was (presumably) satisfied, but you who were not even registered on the site at the time, have dug it out of the archives and decided the writing isn't up to your standards, and you must insert yourself in an otherwise acceptable situation and intervene. To what end? And this is basically what lends your draft to criticism of badge-hunting. You are pursuing authorship of something that generally does not inspire necessity or prudence, shrugging off feedback not unlike Python did with the recent LadyRebels defeat.

Is removing a Condemn and adding it back again effectively not a return to the status quo? And while yes, some raiders may oppose the repeal and some defenders the replace, I can only hope that people let me follow through (if i cared enough to want the badge gone for a longer period i'd act like it).

I understand what you're asking, but like my "some view" comment, I'm mentally going through lists of major delegates trying to put together the numbers and I'm not really sure where the votes would come from if you did this. The general climate of R/D isn't particularly inclined to condemnations of raiders at the moment, because raider haven't exactly been riding a wave of success. We saw a flood of drafts to condemn Lily, for example, in 2019 and 2020 when they were at the height of tag raiding. That tag raiding was extraordinarily effective at getting their org's name out to natives who then perceived them as a much larger force than they were. By contrast, TBH has carried out less than 50 successful tag raids in the last six months and I think zero occupations that they actually ran. TBH isn't on peoples' minds. The general name recognition is down, and the inclination to act on that name is as well.

XKI/TSP isn't going to support a replacement, and would absolutely break out PfS when pushed on the issue. I anticipate everyone who is remotely in the raider leaning/sympathetic sphere (TNP, Euro, Osi, TWP, Karma, AA crowd) will either not support the target's removal or will recognise that the gameplay climate means a replacement has poor viability (which is if they don't just write this off as opportunism out of the gate). So it's unclear where the votes will come from regardless of this draft's contents. A more viable line of rhetoric would probably just be to argue that TBH doesn't deserve the badge anymore, and I think that would at least solidify the PfS bloc. The likelihood of that working overall is pretty low, however, in the face of ample precedent of ancient raiding organisations being issue legacy resolutions of their long-past activity.

So, I don't know where your votes will come from.

And I think I wouldn't be "celebrating raiders" in the IC sense at least both with the replace's wording and the intent.

Dispassionately, you're repealing a resolution that was written by a native critical of raiders at a time when condemnations were more considered to be genuine negatives. Replacing it with one which is much more detailed, higher quality, and from the perspective of a GP personality in a time where they're considered awards is not really possible without celebrating raiders or otherwise glorifying the activity.

I have no opinion on that topic, but you should at least be realistic about your political effects.

[Minskiev]

I can’t post an awful lot now, but back then I can presume that condemnations didn’t have an OOC/IC differentiation. Condemns are OOC awards from anti-raiders, IC negative criticism from anti-raiders.

And while yes, C&Cs ultimately serve the purpose of giving a badge, it’s like GA resolutions in the sense that the intent may be noble but if it has lots loopholes (poor writing) then it isn’t any good. And you should know that “if it passes it must be good enough” isn’t a great point considering you’ve just talked against it. (I’m bringing it up bc i think you said it in libcord? Possibly?)

Now to the “your standards” - SC#52 isn’t terribly well put together now, is it? And I mean…if old UN resolutions were repealed…could we not do something similar? While it’s fair that TBH is fine with it, I do plan to replace it. Idk why you put voters satisfied or issuing party satisfied ngl, obviously the issuing party will be satisfied if it passed. And the voters are from 2011. I do have a habit of imposing “personal” standards on resolutions, but I’m sure quite a few people out there don’t find this resolution satisfactory. I don’t think this repeal & replace is a terribly egregious idea.

[HumanSanity]

I can’t post an awful lot now, but back then I can presume that condemnations didn’t have an OOC/IC differentiation. Condemns are OOC awards from anti-raiders, IC negative criticism from anti-raiders.

I'm so confused. All resolutions and proposals are IC endeavors, as is their authorship, the votes on them, and everything else. The idea they're an "OOC award" is completely incoherent and anathema to an in character institution creating laws and opinions.

And while yes, C&Cs ultimately serve the purpose of giving a badge, it’s like GA resolutions in the sense that the intent may be noble but if it has lots loopholes (poor writing) then it isn’t any good.

GA resolutions have in-character effects on nations, so if there is a flaw in the effects of a law then it must be repealed (and sometimes replaced). I expect a similar precedent to be set with Declarations which contain operative in-character directions. Commends, Condemns, and Declarations that are about deciding opinions are not necessarily needing to be "repeal and replaced" constantly, especially if it's just about "standards".

And you should know that “if it passes it must be good enough” isn’t a great point considering you’ve just talked against it. (I’m bringing it up bc i think you said it in libcord? Possibly?)

I don't think you understood Luca's point. As I understand it, their point was that there are many reasons an SC resolution could be repealed (and replaced) but that repealing-with-intent-to-replace of resolutions in the distant (not recent) history of the SC is not necessarily something we expect to be within SC norms. You could repeal it if it was never deserved (i.e. Makdon's Repeal of Commend Wintony), but Condemn Macedon-style repeal-then-replace of an ancient SC resolution is unlikely and undesirable.

[Refuge Isle]

HS already covered the IC/OOC response.

And while yes, C&Cs ultimately serve the purpose of giving a badge, it’s like GA resolutions in the sense that the intent may be noble but if it has lots loopholes (poor writing) then it isn’t any good.

There's no equivalent for a "Loophole" in an SC resolution. If there is an operative clause which commends, condemns, liberates, or repeals, then it does those things. Declarations do nothing at all. That covers the lot.

And you should know that “if it passes it must be good enough” isn’t a great point considering you’ve just talked against it.

No. I gave examples of when the unusual use of an award repeal has generally been used successfully: 1) insta-repeals, 2) targets believed to not deserve the award, 3) where the content is factually inaccurate, 4) the target requests it. I said anything outside of that is a political anomaly of which I can only immediately recall SC#271 for relevance, which was later called a mistake. Your rhetorical angle on this proposal is exclusively mechanical construction, so you're the latter, the precedent of that is limited and the popularity of it is low.

Now to the “your standards” - SC#52 isn’t terribly well put together now, is it? And I mean…if old UN resolutions were repealed…could we not do something similar?

The UN did not have a Security Council, it was a proto-GA. It did not have the paradigm that we do, the award system that we do, and I would not personally consider United Nations politics cir. 2002-2008 to be particularly relevant even were it the case. The examples that I cite are within the last three years, which is probably stretching about as far as one can for "recent relevance".

The construction of SC#52 is poor, but not dissimilar to resolutions passed at the time, including Swarmlandia, Sedgistan, Mikeswill. All three were repealed on the grounds of the #2 reason I mentioned earlier, not their construction. Resolutions not covered by one of the four above reasons are nearly all in tact.

While it’s fair that TBH is fine with it, I do plan to replace it. Idk why you put voters satisfied or issuing party satisfied ngl, obviously the issuing party will be satisfied if it passed. And the voters are from 2011. I do have a habit of imposing “personal” standards on resolutions, but I’m sure quite a few people out there don’t find this resolution satisfactory. I don’t think this repeal & replace is a terribly egregious idea.

As I indicated in my last post, you're shrugging off feedback not unlike Python does. I would invite you to re-read what I wrote and internalise that feedback rather than responding with reaffirmations which amount to lies you tell yourself to feel better. I didn't call the idea "egregious", I said "I don't know where your votes will come from." with ample elaboration regarding my reasoning. I have no doubt you will attempt to push this regardless, but this is my analysis and feedback.