It was defeated by a margin of 10,247 votes (about 82%) to 2,206 (about 18%).
This proposal has been re-filed to the Security Council Repeals Board.
NOTE: at 2348 BST on the 26th of October 2019, this proposal reached quorum with Greater Serbian Provinces' approval, the 65th all told. This process happened again three minutes later, after GSP withdrew and then regranted their approval.
Word count: 411 (-12.37%)
CURRENT DRAFT: Draft #3b, a slimmed-down version of Draft 3.
Contextualised: Commend TBH, Condemn TBH (SC#52) forum thread, New South Arctica on SC#52, NSA said that SC#52 was "not very accurate," Halcones wanted a Commendation and Condemnation for TBH!, "mere targeting," not invasion, what DP meant by "cooling effect," Tikal wasn't that experienced at the time.
Repeal "Condemn The Black Hawks" (SC#52)
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation that many at the time thought would have been InstaRepealed.Category: RepealResolution: SC#52Proposed by: Tinhampton
Security Council Resolution #52 “Condemn The Black Hawks” shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
THE SECURITY COUNCIL:
ADAMANT that every resolution it passes should act as an accessible guide to the historical and present context and actions of its subject, combining a certain level of detail supported by empirical evidence with prompts for further research by world leaders into the subject's nature;
CONCERNED that the target resolution's cult status as a "symbolic Condemnation of invasion" arises from the poor choice of terms it uses to describe The Black Hawks (TBH) - any organised group of raiders, not just TBH, can be described as "aggressive," unpoliced and overly ban-happy - and in spite of its flagrant inferiority to [resolution=SC#217]SC#217,[/resolution] a thorough criticism of the Black Hawks' innumerable horrors;
BEMUSED at SC#52's claims that TBH threatened "the functioning and survival of the Security Council" at the time by fuelling "a cooling effect on free speech and... democracy," which the authoring delegation has admitted is a blanket reference to TBH's general raiding activity, as expanded upon by SC#217;
NOTING, however, that this "cooling effect" could also be implied to include the mere targeting of regions whose WA Delegates supported SC#52, when - regardless of whether this "targeting" ever occurred, and by the admission of some notable Black Hawks of the era - TBH did not invade any region simply because of its stance on the target resolution;
OBSERVING that the Black Hawks of 2011 specialised in small-scale tag raiding (at the time, TBH's record tag run was a mere 16 regions), where only cosmetic changes are applied and natives are seldom banned; while certainly upsetting to regional communities, the practice is often non-destructive and has negligible potential to destroy the SC's innately democratic nature;
RECOGNISING that The Black Hawks' failed self-Commendation of March 2011 alluded to in SC#52 was drafted by Soaring Tikal, an active but minor Black Hawk (later a Lieutenant in TBH and, as Tikal Wolf, the Khan of Lone Wolves United) which had not been told to prepare the draft by their superiors; the hypothesis of an actual "conspiracy" amongst Black Hawks to Commend themselves must be rejected in lieu of any evidence beyond what has been stated here; and
HOPING to dissociate itself from a resolution so lacklustre - and even fictitious at times - that it regularly loses sight of The Black Hawks' true nature in favour of unqualified rhetoric:
HEREBY REPEALS SC#52 "Condemn The Black Hawks."
A1: No. The first ever resolution passed by the Security Council was Condemn Macedon, which was in June 2009 a very real threat to global security. For the following nine years, multiple attempts to repeal it had been opposed at every turn on the grounds that it was a historical resolution that demanded preservation. However, an improved Condemnation with substantially more detail than the original, SC#269, was entered into the resolution books in December 2018. The passage of SC#271 later that month - a repeal of SC#1 itself - demonstrated that the Security Council had moved on from a resolution with good intentions but a lack of detail.
Similarly, The Black Hawks were condemned in April 2011 despite posing a much lesser threat to the average nation. For the following eight years, multiple attempts to repeal it have been opposed at every turn on the grounds that it was a historical resolution that demanded preservation - even despite an improved Condemnation with substantially more detail than the original, SC#217, entering into the resolution books in March 2017. Why, then, should the Security Council not move on from SC#52, a resolution with good intentions but a lack of detail?
Q2: You're trying to whitewash Gameplay's history! DEATH TO TINHAMPTON!
A2: The actions conducted by The Black Hawks in Gameplay would still have been recorded and publicised by somebody like they are today. The Black Hawks' established reputation for creativity in raiding is unlikely to die out due to this proposed repeal; there are plenty of examples of it on the forums and within SC#217. Nothing that has happened to The Black Hawks in the past will have changed as a result of having one of their Condemnations stripped.
Q3: How will passing a repeal of SC#52 affect me?
A3: There is a difference between putting a strike through a few lines of text on a screen and leaving a trading bloc of two dozen other nations. One minute after SC#52 is removed from the books, you will not suffer mass hysteria and disappointment. There may be a few tears shed, but your region is highly unlikely to be taken over by a motley crew of invaders hungry for pride and power, and there is even less of a chance that The Black Hawks will suddenly go out holding the Security Council ransom in an attempt to prove me wrong. The links provided to SC#52 will not disappear, the text of SC#52 will not be changed in any way, and the fact that a Security Council resolution recognising the impact that The Black Hawks have had on gameplay was passed in 2011 will not be rendered false. The only difference will be that the resolution itself will be written in a shade of gray and with a single neat line through every word in the resolution.
Q4: Tagging sixteen what again?
A4: A tag raid, which was TBH's modus operandi in 2011, is when a raider group leaves an (occasionally witty) promotional message, including forces that took part in the operation, in place of the WFE. Natives are almost never ejected in tag raids and the original delegate usually regains power within a few updates; you're thinking of classical invasions, which TBH are engaging in a fair bit more these days!
Q5: Commend The Black Hawks when?
A5: Probably not in the foreseeable future. Even if they lose this one, they still have a much more well-written and deserved badge.
Q6: I'm sorry, Tin, but you're just not the right person to be writing this.
A6: The version of SC#251 you see on the books today is - save for some statistical updates - almost identical to the version I submitted in August 2017, when I had barely started to break through the Sports community (or, shall I say, its largest sector, the Football World Cup). A repeal of SC#52 has been proposed many times before, and defeated at vote at least twice, once a few weeks after submission and another by somebody who wasn't there. At the centre of your decision on which way to vote, clearly, should be the contents of the resolution itself.
updated 17th January 2020, because I'm forgetful and thought that the second Condemn TBH was SC#269 instead of SC#217