(Submitted) Repeal SCR #52: Condemn The Black Hawks

[Juansonia]

Opposed, and I hope that a member of the Black Hawks writes a better repeal of this just to demonstrate the lunacy and hypocrisy of the MGC sanctions.

[Astrobolt]

Don’t submit this. This will likely fail at vote.

If it dies, it dies. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take, to throw a corny phrase into the mix.

The problem is that if it dies, it makes it harder for this repeal to pass in the near future.

[Hustlertwo]

If it dies, it dies. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take, to throw a corny phrase into the mix.

The problem is that if it dies, it makes it harder for this repeal to pass in the near future.

If anyone has suggestions to improve its odds, I already was and still am open to them (although, for all the replies this thread has gotten, it is critically short on anything actually helpful. Sadly, this seems the norm here.), and will implement whatever seems right. If no one has anything, then it strikes me that it doesn't really matter if this makes it harder to repeal in the future if there wasn't much interest in repealing it now.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Well the senior participants in the SC tend to recognise something that is doomed to failure from the outset and an author that’s not prepared to listen.

[Varanius]

The problem is that if it dies, it makes it harder for this repeal to pass in the near future.

If anyone has suggestions to improve its odds, I already was and still am open to them (although, for all the replies this thread has gotten, it is critically short on anything actually helpful. Sadly, this seems the norm here.), and will implement whatever seems right. If no one has anything, then it strikes me that it doesn't really matter if this makes it harder to repeal in the future if there wasn't much interest in repealing it now.

Lol, you’re not very good at this. The fact that there is not currently interest in your poorly written repeal does not mean that there will never be interest in a repeal by anyone, and that by submitting this proposal, you damage the chances of a future one succeeding. Your selfish desire to pass this proposal yourself may very well be what sinks for it a good while. Ironic isn’t it?

[800]

Added a bit at the end to drive home how silly it is for TBH to have two condemnations. Honestly, it kinda always was. They should have repealed and replaced 52 to begin with.

If we're going off that logic, why don't we repeal one of Imperium Anglorum's Commendations too?

[Hustlertwo]

Added a bit at the end to drive home how silly it is for TBH to have two condemnations. Honestly, it kinda always was. They should have repealed and replaced 52 to begin with.

If we're going off that logic, why don't we repeal one of Imperium Anglorum's Commendations too?

Sounds good.

[Lenlyvit]

Decided to try my hand at a repeal that seems rather timely in the face of recent events. Please feel free to give suggestions on anything else that can beef it up before it is submitted for consideration.


The Security Council,

DOUBTFUL that The Black Hawks have maintained the level of fear-inducing activity described in this earlier measure,

NOTING that the recent passage of SCR #425, a condemnation of prominent Black Hawks general Ever-Wandering Souls, effectively detailed the impotent flailing and idle bluster that have been a hallmark for the organization as a whole in recent times,

Resolution #425 wasn't a condemnation, it was a repeal of a condemnation. That's a big difference, and something you got wrong.

FURTHER NOTING that concerns over their ability to subvert democracy should now be dashed to pieces after the spectacular failure of TBH and their allies to have any notable impact on the votes for the aforementioned resolution #425, which passed with ease despite both legitimate telegram campaigns and widespread (but mostly ineffectual) invasions on behalf of this raider faction to keep the condemnation intact,

TBH has a long history that spans far longer than just during the vote of resolution #425, and it's full of democracy subverting practices. Whether or not they failed to have a notable impact on the vote of resolution #425 does not mean that they shouldn't be thought of as a massively anti-democratic entity. They're raiders, by definition they're anti-democratic

HIGHLY SKEPTICAL that The Black Hawks have maintained sufficient notoriety to justify two unrepealed condemnations,

CONCEDING that, if a condemnation should remain for The Black Hawks, resolution #217 presents a much more cohesive and detailed picture of the region's actions than this resolution, which hails from a more archaic age of this body's history,

UNIMPRESSED that, outside of the now-refuted concept of The Black Hawks being able to circumvent democracy through passing a self-commendation, SCR #52 offers precious little in the way of details as to what the organization has actually accomplished,

I'm not sure where you got the self-commendation thing? Can you explain it?

CLARIFYING that, while this region may indeed have exerted control of a number of regions in the multiverse, the vast majority of these were miniscule, inactive, or both, rendering these conquests as having very little impact on the global balance of power,

AMUSED that this region's actions are as likely to hurt the overall cause of raiders within the multiverse as to help them, which makes them insufficiently worthy of being doubly condemned,

UNCERTAIN what remaining benefit there could be in leaving this condemnation open since it consists almost entirely of vagaries and now-disproven assumptions,

QUITE CERTAIN, however, that there is no justifiable reason for Black Hawks to be the sole double-condemned region in the multiverse when they are far from the most effective or notable raider organization in existence,

HEREBY REPEALS "Condemn The Black Hawks"

I don't have much to say on this part, other than the fact that TBH is one of the top raider organizations out there, and have been for a long time. Overall, these arguments are presented in the wrong way and perhaps are the wrong arguments to make for the repeal. This would not pass at vote if it went to vote.

If we're going off that logic, why don't we repeal one of Imperium Anglorum's Commendations too?

Sounds good.

I also would not touch IA's commendations. Either one of them. He's more than deserved them.

[Hustlertwo]

Usable feedback! I knew at least one or two of y'all could manage it. I've fixed that to show it was a repeal of a condemnation, thanks for the catch.

I feel like at the time of #52, it was a concern they were going to push through a commendation through raider tactics similar to what they failed with in trying to keep the recent condemn repeal from passing, but I changed the verbiage to be more vague anyhow.

[Hustlertwo]

This has been submitted. Let the chips fall where they may.