[PASSED] Repeal "Condemn DEN"

[We Are Not the NSA]

You Can Vote Here

The Security Council,

Noting the acts of aggression committed by the DEN war machine against innocent regions and recognizing it as a threat,

Recalling that raider groups have been using the name DEN since ancient times, and that many incarnations of the region have existed,

Recognizing that the current incarnation of DEN was spawned in the wake of the destruction of The Black Riders, but remained a separate entity from The Black Riders, having different leadership, attracting many new raiders who had never been members of the previously mentioned group, and employing different, less mechanical strategies,

Disappointed that SC #187 falls for the common misconception that the two raider groups are one and the same, when they are in fact quite different from one another,

Shocked that SC # 187 insinuates that DEN “destroys unique cultures and communities” throughout NationStates, yet fails to provide even a single example of a refound to support this claim,

Reminded that DEN has not refounded a native region by force since its revival, excluding the raider region Power Is Rising, which negates the second clause completely as none of the listed raids caused regional destruction on any scale,

Skeptical regarding the statement that DEN conducted “The invasion of the region of Christmas” considering the fact that there is no evidence that DEN has ever led an occupation of said region. The only recorded DEN involvement in any occupation of Christmas was the reinforcement of a 2012 raid conducted by Asgard. SC #187 makes it out as if DEN invaded the region, when in reality, DEN was one of four raider groups who merely reinforced a fifth group’s invasion,

Confused as to why DEN’s raid of Paradoxia goes completely unmentioned throughout SC# 187, despite being one of the modern DEN’s earliest and most controversial raids,

Appalled by the simply atrocious number of spelling, grammar, and syntax errors throughout the proposal, including:

• The use of “appaled” instead of “appalled” in the third clause,
  
• The inconsistent use of punctuation marks throughout the proposal,
  
• The statement that the invasion of Catholic occurred in “the 2012”,
  
• The multiple uses of the phrase “on Nationstates” in clauses two and five, which Sedgistan, a member of the Secretariat, has described as being “grammatically incorrect”,
  
• And the horrific half thought, “even though the atrocities they have done to many regions on Nationstates” in the sixth clause,

Asserting that the language used throughout SC #187 is not fit to be used in a book report, let alone in an international law,

Exasperated by the concept that there were raiding “strategies and tactics that condemned the Black Riders”, when it is a well known fact that it was the Security Council that condemned The Black Riders,

Realizing that the condemnation has been publicly dismissed by many Security Council veterans as being poorly written and hastily submitted,

Remembering that the condemnation of DEN is not a time sensitive issue, and should be done with at least enough care as to not make basic spelling and grammar mistakes, as well as to avoid major factual errors,

Concluding that Security Council Resolution #187 “Condemn DEN” is not fit for use by this esteemed body,

Hereby Repeals SC #187: Condemn DEN.

Co-Authored by Tim-Opolis

The Security Council,

Noting the acts of aggression committed by the DEN war machine against innocent regions and recognizing it as a threat,

Appalled by the simply atrocious number of spelling, grammar, and syntax errors throughout the proposal, including:

• The use of “appaled” instead of “appalled” in the third clause,
  
• The inconsistent use of punctuation marks throughout the proposal,
  
• The statement that the invasion of Catholic occurred in “the 2012”,
  
• The multiple uses of the phrase “on Nationstates” in clauses two and five, which a member of the Secretariat has described as being “grammatically incorrect”,
  
• And the horrific half thought, “even though the atrocities they have done to many regions on Nationstates” in the sixth clause,

Asserting that the language used throughout SC #187 is not fit to be used in a book report, let alone in an international law,

Exasperated by the concept that there were raiding “strategies and tactics that condemned the Black Riders”, when it is a well known fact that it was the Security Council that condemned The Black Riders,

Recognizing that the current incarnation of DEN and the Black Riders are separate entities, despite similarities in style and membership,

Shocked that SC # 187 insinuates that DEN “destroys unique cultures and communities” throughout NationStates, but fails to provide even a single example of a refound to support this claim,

Reminded that while raiding is capable of taking away a community’s region, it is impossible to permanently destroy a region, and even more difficult to destroy a community in NationStates,

Further reminded that DEN has not even refounded a native region by force since its revival, excluding the raider region Power Is Rising, which negates the second clause completely as none of the listed raids caused regional destruction on any scale,

Confused as to why DEN’s raid of Paradoxia went completely unmentioned throughout SC# 187, despite being one of DEN’s most controversial raids,

Realizing that the condemnation was publicly dismissed by many Security Council veterans as being hastily submitted and poorly written,

Remembering that the condemnation of DEN is not a time sensitive issue, and should be done with at least enough care as to not make basic spelling and grammar mistakes,

Concluding that Security Council Resolution #187 “Condemn DEN” is not fit for use by this esteemed body,

Hereby Repeals SC #187: Condemn DEN.

So, a few elephants in the room I need to start with:

First: The Condemnation has not passed yet, and there is still plenty of time for the vote to change directions. That said, I want to start drafting now to get it out of the way, in case it does pass.

Second: I am a member of the region this condemnation targets. However it should be noted that my region does not care if it is condemned or not. I personally think that this specific draft should never have even been voted on, and if you read the proposal I do my best to keep it objective. I wrote this as a frequent and vocal member of the Security Council, not as a raider.

Please excuse me if it is cluttered, it is rough draft after all. I wanted to get ideas out, now I want to improve them, so any criticism would be appreciated, unless your only argument is "DEN deserves to be condemned" to which my response is: Okay, I respect that opinion, but it does not excuse the sorry state of this condemnation. I was going to write my own Condemn DEN and submit both as a repeal and replace, but while my allegiances should not disqualify this repeal I'll draw the line with a self condemnation. If anyone wants to draft another Condemn DEN, I would be happy to coordinate with you.

PS I'm aware of the sarcastic tones of clauses 3 and 4, they are for affect. Also, I like clause 3 a lot.

[Kaboomlandia]

OOC: Your list coding is broken.

On the draft itself: I support.

[We Are Not the NSA]

OOC: Your list coding is broken.

On the draft itself: I support.

Fixed it. I spent ten minutes playing with it because I've never used that specific coding before, and after I finally got it I copy and pasted the version I had with the incorrect code.

[Kaboomlandia]

I'm not sure. Is that "Rule 4c" reference in the list illegal in itself?

[Gradea]

No support.

[We Are Not the NSA]

I'm not sure. Is that "Rule 4c" reference in the list illegal in itself?

Oh right, I forgot. I underlined that originally and meant to ask about its legality, but forgot, then I removed the underline from mobile. Ironic if mentioning an R4c violation is an R4c violation, but I want to check first.

No support.

Any particular reason?

[Gradea]

No support.

Any particular reason?

I must avenge my home village after DEN came in their fearsome longships.

To avenge my village, I must support SC proposals which do very little apart from the fact that they give a shiny badge to DEN.

[Dark Commander]

I feel like a fair amount of the points here are nitpicks. I am not against this proposal per say, but I think it's worth mentioning.

[Dark Commander]

Oh right, I forgot. I underlined that originally and meant to ask about its legality, but forgot, then I removed the underline from mobile. Ironic if mentioning an R4c violation is an R4c violation, but I want to check first.

I think I heard somewhere that referencing R4 in a proposal is itself a violation, since a reference is being made to a gameplay mechanic/rule. However, don't quote me on this.

[Maltropia]

Oh hey, this draft made all the same points I just made in a post on the At Vote thread, and then some. Oops. Anyway, I'd support this if it came to vote, which hopefully it won't need to because there must be at least some sane voters in the WA.

[Cormac Stark]

Full support for this in theory, with a few notes:

• The references to moderators and their rulings may be R4 violations. You can probably get around this with some creative RP language, perhaps by referring to Moderation as "the Secretariat" as they do in the General Assembly. References to Rule 4c may also be problematic as others have noted.
  
• You have a stray [/tab] at the end of your bullet point list.
  
• Criticizing the use of informal contractions is probably nitpicking. They're used in other resolutions.
  
• I'm not sure "exacerbated" is the word you want to use in the fourth clause. It doesn't seem to make sense there.
  
• Misspelled NationStates as "NatioinStates" in the seventh clause.

Otherwise the content looks good and I support this repeal proposal.

[Vancouvia]

Well-written and necessary

[Niklas Vorteil]

As do I. A poorly-written condemnation that is somehow passing.

[We Are Not the NSA]

I feel like a fair amount of the points here are nitpicks. I am not against this proposal per say, but I think it's worth mentioning.

Nits left unpicked grow up to be lice.

Oh right, I forgot. I underlined that originally and meant to ask about its legality, but forgot, then I removed the underline from mobile. Ironic if mentioning an R4c violation is an R4c violation, but I want to check first.

I think I heard somewhere that referencing R4 in a proposal is itself a violation, since a reference is being made to a gameplay mechanic/rule. However, don't quote me on this.

I remember something about it too, but couldn't find it, so I decided to put it in and remove it if I get confirmation it is illegal. I feel like referencing the rules of Security Council proposals in a Security Council proposal that is trying to repeal a Security Council resolution shouldn't be illegal, but the rule mentioned bans references to NS as a game, so the question I need answered is whether that counts as a mention of NS being a game.

Oh hey, this draft made all the same points I just made in a post on the At Vote thread, and then some. Oops. Anyway, I'd support this if it came to vote, which hopefully it won't need to because there must be at least some sane voters in the WA.

You actually caught some stuff that I didn't, and I might add some of them, although I think I've pointed out enough of the errors already.

[We Are Not the NSA]

Full support for this in theory, with a few notes:

• The references to moderators and their rulings may be R4 violations. You can probably get around this with some creative RP language, perhaps by referring to Moderation as "the Secretariat" as they do in the General Assembly. References to Rule 4c may also be problematic as others have noted.

Yeah, I've decided I'm just going to change up the word just to avoid unnecessary difficulties later.

You have a stray [/tab] at the end of your bullet point list.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Criticizing the use of informal contractions is probably nitpicking. They're used in other resolutions.

Yeeeeaaah... I was scraping the bottom of the barrel there...

I'm not sure "exacerbated" is the word you want to use in the fourth clause. It doesn't seem to make sense there.

Funny story with that actually: I was trying to use a different word, but it autocorrected to 'exacerbated'. Then I found out that the word I was trying to use was not a real word, and I'm crazy.

Edit: Nevermind, it was a word, I just can't spell worth a damn. It was supposed to be "exasperated", but reading it now I'm not sure it fits. What do people think of the word "irked" because I've always liked it?

Misspelled NationStates as "NatioinStates" in the seventh clause.

Thank you again.

[Consular]

Any particular reason?

I must avenge my home village after DEN came in their fearsome longships.

To avenge my village, I must support SC proposals which do very little apart from the fact that they give a shiny badge to DEN.

You want to avenge your village... By allowing DEN to have a badge?

[We Are Not the NSA]

Okay, I updated the OP. Didn't bother saving each draft, as so far it has consisted of mostly minor edits. The only major changes I made were:
1) removing the contractions part (Cormac is right, it made me sound like a prick)
2) adding in the use of "the 2012" (tell me if I should take that one out)

With my current time frame, I will likely submit this tomorrow afternoon, or on Tuesday. I do not have access to any stamps right now, so any campaigning will be done manually and only target delegates, unless some charitable soul takes it upon themselves to campaign for me (not holding my breath).

And finally: I will be submitting this with Nohbdy. The last time I did that, I was accused of trying to trick people, and in this case I am. However, if I post this paragraph admitting to it, before I do it, in the thread for the proposal, and people don't figure it out, am I really the one to blame or is it the people who don't read the thread? As I've said before, I am submitting this as a member of the Security Council, not as a member of DEN, and I want people to pay attention to my arguments, not my affiliations.

Please continue to share your thoughts, and please keep suggesting edits. I did these last edits before my coffee, and I probably missed something.

[Dark Commander]

Nits left unpicked grow up to be lice.

All proposals need more lice.

I remember something about it too, but couldn't find it, so I decided to put it in and remove it if I get confirmation it is illegal. I feel like referencing the rules of Security Council proposals in a Security Council proposal that is trying to repeal a Security Council resolution shouldn't be illegal, but the rule mentioned bans references to NS as a game, so the question I need answered is whether that counts as a mention of NS being a game.

Part of the reason why I think rule four should be removed, or at least heavily edited.

[Dark Commander]

Okay, I updated the OP. Didn't bother saving each draft, as so far it has consisted of mostly minor edits. The only major changes I made were:
1) removing the contractions part (Cormac is right, it made me sound like a prick)
2) adding in the use of "the 2012" (tell me if I should take that one out)

With my current time frame, I will likely submit this tomorrow afternoon, or on Tuesday. I do not have access to any stamps right now, so any campaigning will be done manually and only target delegates, unless some charitable soul takes it upon themselves to campaign for me (not holding my breath).

And finally: I will be submitting this with Nohbdy. The last time I did that, I was accused of trying to trick people, and in this case I am. However, if I post this paragraph admitting to it, before I do it, in the thread for the proposal, and people don't figure it out, am I really the one to blame or is it the people who don't read the thread? As I've said before, I am submitting this as a member of the Security Council, not as a member of DEN, and I want people to pay attention to my arguments, not my affiliations.

Please continue to share your thoughts, and please keep suggesting edits. I did these last edits before my coffee, and I probably missed something.

I would remove the line about Paradoxia. It doesn't really seem like a valid reason as to why the condemnation should be repealed; if anything, you are providing evidence as to why DEN should be condemned.

[We Are Not the NSA]

Okay, I updated the OP. Didn't bother saving each draft, as so far it has consisted of mostly minor edits. The only major changes I made were:
1) removing the contractions part (Cormac is right, it made me sound like a prick)
2) adding in the use of "the 2012" (tell me if I should take that one out)

With my current time frame, I will likely submit this tomorrow afternoon, or on Tuesday. I do not have access to any stamps right now, so any campaigning will be done manually and only target delegates, unless some charitable soul takes it upon themselves to campaign for me (not holding my breath).

And finally: I will be submitting this with Nohbdy. The last time I did that, I was accused of trying to trick people, and in this case I am. However, if I post this paragraph admitting to it, before I do it, in the thread for the proposal, and people don't figure it out, am I really the one to blame or is it the people who don't read the thread? As I've said before, I am submitting this as a member of the Security Council, not as a member of DEN, and I want people to pay attention to my arguments, not my affiliations.

Please continue to share your thoughts, and please keep suggesting edits. I did these last edits before my coffee, and I probably missed something.

I would remove the line about Paradoxia. It doesn't really seem like a valid reason as to why the condemnation should be repealed; if anything, you are providing evidence as to why DEN should be condemned.

I included that clause to point out that it leaves out details (and fairly important ones at that). The main idea I am trying to convey is that DEN deserves to be condemned, but not by this specific draft. If I go with just "DEN shouldn't be condemned" I would have no hope of passing this. It's been made pretty clear that a majority of the WA thinks DEN should be condemned, so by agreeing with them is the safest bet. Besides, the only justification that I have (as a member of DEN) for allowing myself to write this is that I'm not just complaining that my region doesn't deserve a condemnation. I am me and I think I sound whiny in that scenario.

[Dark Commander]

I would remove the line about Paradoxia. It doesn't really seem like a valid reason as to why the condemnation should be repealed; if anything, you are providing evidence as to why DEN should be condemned.

I included that clause to point out that it leaves out details (and fairly important ones at that). The main idea I am trying to convey is that DEN deserves to be condemned, but not by this specific draft. If I go with just "DEN shouldn't be condemned" I would have no hope of passing this. It's been made pretty clear that a majority of the WA thinks DEN should be condemned, so by agreeing with them is the safest bet. Besides, the only justification that I have (as a member of DEN) for allowing myself to write this is that I'm not just complaining that my region doesn't deserve a condemnation. I am me and I think I sound whiny in that scenario.

I see.

[Maltropia]

In fact, more resolutions should mention Paradoxia, even when totally irrelevant. I say this in my capacity as someone who Clearly Has No Connection to Paradoxia.

[Ramaeus]

Grammatical impropriety is an argument of the most unconvincing caliber. You could argue that quite a few resolutions are garbage based on that standard, so why not focus on repealing those first? It will make you seem less hypocritical.

Secondly, arguing a technicality -- that TBR and DEN are separate entities -- is extraordinarily weak. You're trying to combat public opinion, and it should be obvious that people view DEN as a continuation of TBR. To a large extent, public opinion is accurate. They are TBR. The major difference is a rebrand.

Finally, you have a few clauses that are worth keeping in some form. The rest are nonsensical, unconvincing, or biased. You shouldn't provide more reasons for people to vote against this draft. You should instead be focusing on providing a counter to the arguments made within the soon-to-be-passed-resolution you wish to repeal.

The Security Council,

Shocked that SC # 187 insinuates that DEN “destroys unique cultures and communities” throughout NationStates, but fails to provide even a single example of a refound to support this claim,

Hereby Repeals SC #187: Condemn DEN.

[Cormac Stark]

Grammatical impropriety is an argument of the most unconvincing caliber. You could argue that quite a few resolutions are garbage based on that standard, so why not focus on repealing those first? It will make you seem less hypocritical.

You may be right about grammatical errors, but significant and repeated misspellings occur in this condemnation and are far less common in other resolutions that are still on the books. It's fair game to point out that this condemnation has crappy spelling and grammar because we should expect better.

Secondly, arguing a technicality -- that TBR and DEN are separate entities -- is extraordinarily weak. You're trying to combat public opinion, and it should be obvious that people view DEN as a continuation of TBR. To a large extent, public opinion is accurate. They are TBR. The major difference is a rebrand.

This isn't just a technicality. DEN has existed in one form or another on and off for twelve years, and the condemnation itself makes clear by condemning DEN for past activities that DEN is more than TBR 2.0.

While much of former TBR's membership has moved to DEN, and while Gest is the Field Marshal, members of DEN's previous leadership have also been involved. New faces (like Ivo/Knot) who were never TBR have also been involved. Putting leadership aside, DEN's raiding style is substantively different from TBR's. DEN has been far less focused on tag raiding and has instead been almost exclusively focused on high profile raids and occupations, which was true of DEN in the past as well. These have included stealth raids, something TBR almost never bothered doing, choosing instead to rely on speed and numerical strength.

Most people thought DEN would just be a continuation of TBR, but that has been proven wrong. DEN under Gest shows much more continuity with previous incarnations of DEN than with TBR.

Finally, you have a few clauses that are worth keeping in some form. The rest are nonsensical, unconvincing, or biased. You shouldn't provide more reasons for people to vote against this draft. You should instead be focusing on providing a counter to the arguments made within the soon-to-be-passed-resolution you wish to repeal.

I disagree. I think this repeal proposal does exactly what it needs to do to actually get the condemnation repealed.

[Sedgistan]

Just confirming that overt references to moderators and the rules are Rule 4 violations. Those seem to have been edited out, since I don't see them in the OP.