[DEFEATED] Repeal SC#52 "Condemn The Black Hawks"

[Tinhampton]

This resolution was at vote between the 27th and 31st of October, 2019.
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.

TINHAMPTONIAN MINISTRY OF WORLD ASSEMBLY AFFAIRS: Notice of Submission Warning
Considering the original draft publication date for this resolution (October 17th 2019), let it hereby be known by the Tinhamptonian Ministry of WA Affairs that this proposal will be submitted, lack of complaints notwithstanding, on October 22nd 23rd 2019. Thank you for your consideration.

---

Character count: 2,498 (-13.44%)
Word count: 411 (-12.37%)

Tinhampton's Answers to Frequently Askable Questions about Repeal SC#52

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: Repeal

Resolution: SC#52

Proposed 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."

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: Repeal

Resolution: SC#52

Proposed 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 predicates about The Black Hawks (TBH) - when not totally fabricated - could apply to any other organised group of raiders, such as their description as being "aggressive" and unpoliced raiders that ban natives from their regions; it is also clearly inferior to [resolution=SC#217]SC#217,[/resolution] a thorough criticism of the innumerable horrific acts of TBH;

SCOFFING at SC#52's claims that TBH threatened "the functioning and survival of the Security Council" (SC) 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 (SC#217 expands on this point) but could also be implied to include the mere targeting of regions that supported certain SC proposals;

OBSERVING, however, that small-scale, non-destructive tag raiding - which the Black Hawks of 2011 specialised in - although certainly upsetting to regional communities (TBH's then-record tag run of 16 regions in March 2011 was dwarfed by "Project Peregrine" eight years later, when they defaced 144 regions), has negligible potential to destroy the SC's innately democratic nature;

NOTING that raids intended to influence proposals in queue and at vote (like TBH's successful attempt to defeat Liberate Illuminati in March 2017) are rare, not exclusively conducted by TBH - and have never been used against regions simply for supporting SC#52, a claim that has been rubbished even by influential Black Hawks of the era;

RECOGNISING two problems with the target resolution's argument that TBH officially conspired to pass an ill-fated proposal to Commend themselves in March 2011:

1. The proposal was drafted by Soaring Tikal, an active but minor Black Hawk (only later becoming a Lieutenant in TBH and, as Tikal Wolf, the Khan of Lone Wolves United) that declared that they had not been told to prepare the draft by higher-up Black Hawks; and
2. SC#52 seems to have wrongly identified such a conspiracy in considering the proposal's support by Halcones, a then-prominent Black Hawk - support that is now insignificant and should not be dwelled upon by the SC, regardless of historical note, in line with the principle set by [resolution=SC#227]SC#227[/resolution]; 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 sheer unqualified rhetoric:

HEREBY REPEALS SC#52 "Condemn The Black Hawks."

THE SECURITY COUNCIL:

NOTING that a resolution was passed by this august body to Condemn The Black Hawks in April 2011;

CONCURRING with the Condemnation that raiding is legal, but a controversial practice;

ACKNOWLEDGING that the focal point of this Condemnation was the fact that a nation located in The Black Hawks (TBH) drafted a resolution to Commend TBH ("the self-Commendation") the month before the Condemnation was passed;

AWARE that (although it was written by a nation in TBH) the resolution was submitted by a nation outside TBH, with the agreement of the nation that had originally written the self-Commendation;

POINTING OUT that, although self-Commendations are occasionally submitted to the Security Council, and although this practice is widely frowned upon, their authors do not get Condemned for doing so;

RE-ITERATING that the self-Commendation was submitted six years ago;

THANKFUL that the self-Commendation narrowly failed to reach quorum amongst WA Delegates;

RECOGNISING that TBH do not raid regions based on how they vote on WA proposals, or whether or not regional WA Delegates approve them (and that if they had any threats to do so, they would have done so six years ago);

OBSERVING how, contrary to the resolution's claims that free speech and democracy in the Security Council would have been "cooled" as a result of the self-Commendation, this august body has gone from strength to strength, having passed over 160 resolutions since the success of SC#52, including the Condemnations of various notable raiding groups;

UNDERSTANDING that, with the exclusion of the self-Commendation, the only other act listed in TBH's Condemnation was the fact that they raid regions and use bans to displace natives from their regions;

BELIEVING that this sort of act, whilst widely considered to be bad, is not a strong enough basis on its own to Condemn a region (especially without more specific details);

REMEMBERING that TBH have succeeded in raiding hundreds of regions in the past, with even more raided regions that were later liberated (by force or by this Security Council), but that there is not a single example of a TBH raid in SC#52; and

HOPING that a new and better resolution to Condemn TBH will have stronger arguments for as to why the region should be condemned:

HEREBY REPEALS SC#52, "Condemn The Black Hawks".

This here fine Security Council:

Noting that a resolution was passed to Condemn The Black Hawks in April 2011;

Concurring with the Condemnation that raiding is legal, but a controversial practice;

Acknowledging that the focal point of this Condemnation was the fact that a nation located in The Black Hawks (TBH) drafted a resolution to Commend TBH ("the self-Commendation") the month before the Condemnation was passed;

Aware that (although it was written by a nation in TBH) the resolution was submitted by a nation outside TBH, with the agreement of the nation that had originally written the self-Commendation;

Pointing out that, although self-Commendations are occasionally submitted to the Security Council, and although this practice is widely frowned upon, their authors do not get Condemned for doing so;

Re-iterating that the self-Commendation was submitted nearly six years ago;

Thankful that the self-Commendation did not reach quorum amongst delegates;

Fully aware that TBH do not raid regions based on how they vote on WA proposals, or whether or not regional delegates approve them (and that if they had any threats to do so, they would have done so six years ago);

Understanding that, with the exclusion of the self-Commendation, the only other act listed in TBH's Condemnation was the fact that they raid regions and use bans to displace natives from their regions; and

Believing that this sort of act, whilst widely considered to be bad, is not a strong enough basis on its own to Condemn a region;

Hereby Repeals Security Council Resolution #52, "Condemn The Black Hawks".

I'm new to writing proposals (my only previous one was an unpopular plan to Liberate Eternal Scholars, and with good reason). I hope you like this one better. I'm... not really that new to writing proposals, having several to my name as of now (Security Council Resolutions 250, 251, and 267). Please do feel free to critique.

---

Tinhampton's Answers to Frequently Askable Questions about Repeal SC#52

Q1: Were The Black Hawks the first grouping to be Condemned for invading other regions?
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

[Reventus Koth]

Yawn.

[Sygian II]

I guess I may post a critique later, but your base for this repeal is literally the fact that someone tried to self-commend themselves. Not a very valid reason to pass any proposal, in my opinion.

EDIT: Same, Koth

[Satya Romefeller]

"nearly six years ago." dude what math are you using?

[The Stalker]

This won't pass, The Black Hawks deserve their condemnation more than any other raider group, they raid with class, and I think that's something that should be encouraged.

Also pretty sure that Self-Commending was a joke from the start, really weak reason for a repeal.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

This won't pass, The Black Hawks deserve their condemnation more than any other raider group, they raid with class, and I think that's something that should be encouraged.

Also pretty sure that Self-Commending was a joke from the start, really weak reason for a repeal.

Those who think our condemnation is bad, should write a new one covering the last five and a half years as well.

[Cormactopia II]

This won't pass, The Black Hawks deserve their condemnation more than any other raider group, they raid with class, and I think that's something that should be encouraged.

Also pretty sure that Self-Commending was a joke from the start, really weak reason for a repeal.

Those who think our condemnation is bad, should write a new one covering the last five and a half years as well.

I had started a draft to do that, but after coming to the conclusion it was unlikely to pass because it would be seen as raider back-patting, I dropped it. The actual content of the draft is, in my opinion, pretty solid though and could still be used by an author who isn't a raider.

If someone who wouldn't get dinged for being a raider authoring a condemnation of a raider region wants to use and expand upon my draft, please feel free to telegram me to seek permission, and if I'm confident in your ability to submit a decent final product I will probably let you use it.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Those who think our condemnation is bad, should write a new one covering the last five and a half years as well.

I had started a draft to do that, but after coming to the conclusion it was unlikely to pass because it would be seen as raider back-patting, I dropped it. The actual content of the draft is, in my opinion, pretty solid though and could still be used by an author who isn't a raider.

If someone who wouldn't get dinged for being a raider authoring a condemnation of a raider region wants to use and expand upon my draft, please feel free to telegram me to seek permission, and if I'm confident in your ability to submit a decent final product I will probably let you use it.

At risk of going off topic - Yes. I actually compiled a list of stuff for someone once, that was basically

>old condemn
>read all these threads from 2011 onward if you want information
>everything cormac said
>a few other things
>stuff more recent than cormac's draft

Even without direct permission to use your draft, everything you've mentioned in there were valid fact another author could use.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

This won't pass, The Black Hawks deserve their condemnation more than any other raider group, they raid with class, and I think that's something that should be encouraged.

Also pretty sure that Self-Commending was a joke from the start, really weak reason for a repeal.

Must agree with The Stalker, TBH are a class outfit and do deserve their badge.

Your repeal does not read well, seems a little confused to me. Or that could be because I've only had one cup of coffee this morning.

Anyway, no support.

[Tinhampton]

With CG's suggestion of a repeal in the recent Condemn TBH thread, I have taken the liberties to revive this draft - with a few changes, of course.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Draft 2 is still confused and verbose.

In common with the other two proposals you are drafting you seem to think that the more words you use the better.

Simplicity counts towards making a good proposal in my opinion. Make your points short, sharp and punchy.

[Cerian Quilor]

If this proves absolutely necessary to give TBH their better condemnation, I'll support it. Only then.

[Drasnia]

If this proves absolutely necessary to give TBH their better condemnation, I'll support it. Only then.

Sounds like it isn't.

On the Duplication question:

In general, if you've condemned someone for X behaviour, and then want to condemn them for more X behaviour, you're going to have to explain what's different about it now that means that it warrants a further condemnation.

Being more specific, what you'd therefore need to do is go into the detail that the original Condemnation failed to do so (e.g. the number of raids, the terrible stuff TBH does during them, the innocent regions they've defiled) and explain why this is all so bad that it deserves a new Condemnation which describes all of that.

[Tinhampton]

Draft 3, a wholesale facelift of the original proposal, is now up. Feedback will be sought - somehow - for the next twelve days

All comments left above this post pertained to one of the first two drafts of this proposal.

[United Massachusetts]

Support. Love the effort you put into these!

[Lord Dominator]

Note on A1, but Condemn #1 remains around despite Condemn #2 existing primarily because it is felt that TBH has earned 2 Condemns.

Relatedly, I believe the usual secondary reason is that #52 serve(s/d) as a general Condemnation of raiding.

[Armaros]

*yawns* how many times have we been over this now?

And what LD said above me is correct: SC#52, to my knowledge, served as a means to condemn raiding in general.

[Tinhampton]

Do The Black Hawks deserve two Condemnations? I can't possibly say - although I have always supported SC#217 - but I can't think of very many people who deserve a poorly-written badge.

Is SC#52 a symbolic/at-large Condemnation of raiding? Only inasmuch as it was so terribly phrased that the terms it uses to describe TBH in its first three clauses could be applied to any other invasion group, see CONCERNED. (The final six clauses of the target resolution very explicitly point to The Black Hawks, as a group that was suspected to be planning a series of future invasions that either never materialised or are not of note, see SCOFFING and OBSERVING. Investigation into Defero Populus' musings on this matter will reveal that the "cooling effect" alluded to in this resolution is in fact a general reference to the Hawks' raiding.)

[The Pharcyde]

I think we should condemn them a third time. Against!

What's the point of someone having two condemnations anyway?

[Fauxia]

I think we should condemn them a third time. Against!

What's the point of someone having two condemnations anyway?

I’d vote for another well-written condemnation if this bad one is repealed.

Two condemnations makes their body of work more impressive.

I don’t expect this will pass but I will support.

I think the Project Peregrine thing can be removed, and it’s a bit verbose for me, but I suppose it’s acceptable.

[Eumaeus]

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;

This is a sentiment I strongly agree with. Resolutions should act not only in their official purpose, but also as self contained points of reference for those wishing to find more information on a subject.

CONCERNED that the target resolution's predicates about The Black Hawks (TBH) - when not totally fabricated - could apply to any other organised group of raiders, such as their description as being "aggressive" and unpoliced raiders that ban natives from their regions; it is also clearly inferior to [resolution=SC#217]SC#217,[/resolution] a thorough criticism of the innumerable horrific acts of TBH;

I don't think that having clauses applicable to most raider organizations is a valid argument for a repeal. The way I read the resolution those clauses are meant to contextualize the rest. The fact that the other claims may be "fabricated" or incorrect predictions does not necessarily make said contextualization an issue.

Also, this is a point of personal preference, but I do not see the necessity in shortening a region name that only has three syllables through an acronym that also has three syllables.

SCOFFING at SC#52's claims that TBH threatened "the functioning and survival of the Security Council" (SC) 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 (SC#217 expands on this point) but could also be implied to include the mere targeting of regions that supported certain SC proposals;

The quotes and aside muddle this clause's flow and it feels like a run-on sentence. I think there is a mishmash of ideas being presented in this clause and it may be worth separating them into different clauses.

OBSERVING, however, that small-scale, non-destructive tag raiding - which the Black Hawks of 2011 specialised in - although certainly upsetting to regional communities (TBH's then-record tag run of 16 regions in March 2011 was dwarfed by "Project Peregrine" eight years later, when they defaced 144 regions), has negligible potential to destroy the SC's innately democratic nature;

I'm much more sure than the parenthesized section should be separated into a second clause behind this one. It splits up a thought, and is making its own point.

NOTING that raids intended to influence proposals in queue and at vote (like TBH's successful defeat of Liberate Illuminati in March 2017) are rare, not exclusively conducted by TBH - and have never been used against regions simply for supporting SC#52, a claim that has been rubbished even by influential Black Hawks of the era;

"Successful attempt" is bit of an oxymoron in this context, and unnecessarily minimizes what it is describing. What's um... Why is that dash there? It should definitely be a comma.

RECOGNISING two problems with the target resolution's argument that TBH officially conspired to pass an ill-fated proposal to Commend themselves in March 2011:

1. The proposal was drafted by Soaring Tikal, an active but minor Black Hawk (only later becoming a Lieutenant in TBH and, as Tikal Wolf, the Khan of Lone Wolves United) that declared that they had not been told to prepare the draft by their higher-ups; and
2. SC#52 seems to have wrongly identified such a conspiracy in considering the proposal's support by Halcones, a then-prominent Black Hawk - support that is now insignificant and should not be dwelled upon by the SC, regardless of historical note, in line with the principle set by [resolution=SC#227]SC#227[/resolution]; and

Minor edit but I fixed up a bit of phrasing that I found awkward. I'm not sure how I feel about your second point. While it is not a ludicrous assertion (one of the few plausible ones I can come up with) I have been unable to find any indication that Halcones's support is what the author was referring to when they wrote "The Black Hawks have admitted to conspiring". It is equally if not more plausible that the author was referencing the fact that the author of the commendation was openly a member of The Black Hawks. It's also worth noting that Halcones was not the only member of the Black Hawks to post support for the commendation, though he was certainly the most outspoken in his support. You claim that this is not a logical leap, but plausibility and truth should not be conflated. My point is that the condemnation does not clearly reference Halcones, either explicitly or implicitly, and thus the relevancy of SC #227 feels forced to me. If I'm missing something go ahead and point it out please.

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 sheer unqualified rhetoric:

While "sheer unqualified rhetoric" is a fancy way of phrasing your message, I think it sounds... off. It is not grammatically incorrect, but saying it aloud isn't really doing it for me. Maybe "fallacious rhetoric"? "Unqualified" implies that it simply does not provide evidence to back up its claims, whereas "fallacious" implies that the claims are based on a mistaken belief, which seems more in line with your overall argument to me.

[Tinhampton]

I'm still open for your commentary until next Monday. Nohbdy's suggestions have been... noted, but I remain slightly unwilling to carry out any stylistic changes

[Blood Wine]

AIn't happening

[WayNeacTia]

I'm still open for your commentary until next Monday. Nohbdy's suggestions have been... noted, but I remain slightly unwilling to carry out any stylistic changes

It will fail spectacularly. Seems like a huge waste of time. Don't say you weren't warned.

[Praeceps]

I'm still open for your commentary until next Monday. Nohbdy's suggestions have been... noted, but I remain slightly unwilling to carry out any stylistic changes

It will fail spectacularly. Seems like a huge waste of time. Don't say you weren't warned.

I'm curious. With what math are you using to arrive to this conclusion? I can see some of the big Delegates voting For. I also can see some voting Against. However, I can't think of a scenario to be so confident as to state "it will fail spectacularly".