[Passed] Condemn The Black Hawks

[Tinhampton]

I have a repeal written if this would break the duplication rule.

I also have a repeal written: clicky. Of course, Cormac is free to go ahead and publish his repeal. If you still want opinions on my draft, go to the link.

[The Stalker]

I'm not entirely sure this wouldn't break the duplication rule, as the first condemnation already condemned them for raiding in general.

Will have to have a closer look at this and a little chat with other mods, sorry guys. On first glance it does look like a well written proposal.

If it does break the duplication rule, you could always repeal the first one (arguing it doesn't do justice to the atrocities, for example) and then try to pass this one.

But will get back to you guys when I know. Thank you for your patience.

Hmm, I wouldn't have thought it break that rule, feel like i've seen it done similarly before with other multiple badges scenarios, but I guess i'm not sure. Was really hoping to pass this as a second Condemnation, let us know when you come to a decision.

Also generally update on my other issue of length, I do have a mostly complete shorter version of the draft. Though i've been playing with the idea of splitting the current one into a Commending and Condemning.

I'm probably leaning towards doing the shorter draft, though if we do end up needing to repeal the other then I might be more inclined to do a Commending and Condemning, or maybe a double Condemning.

Any thoughts on that would be welcome.

[Sedgistan]

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.

[The Stalker]

Aight new draft up! A sleeker version of what I had before, couldn't use as much coding as I wanted, but the bulk of the content remains, coming in barely under the mark.

Sedgistan, do you think my resolution properly articulates the arguments necessary? I'm thinking my first two lines along with the closer accomplish that, with the bullet points as the body outlining all the newer and varying offenses.

[Cerian Quilor]

Wasn't Catholic a DEN led operation?

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Wasn't Catholic a DEN led operation?

I know we hit CCS but Catholic itself is well too far before my time to know.

It's also been refounded since then, which further complicated me personally fact checking things

[General Knot]

Wasn't Catholic a DEN led operation?

Yes.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Wasn't Catholic a DEN led operation?

Yes.

I was there, it was indeed a DEN operation.

[The Stalker]

Kk, removed them.

[Sedgistan]

Sedgistan, do you think my resolution properly articulates the arguments necessary? I'm thinking my first two lines along with the closer accomplish that, with the bullet points as the body outlining all the newer and varying offenses.

It could do it better. What you've got at the moment acknowledges they've already been Condemned, but says they've done more since and are particularly resilient. It hasn't quite explained "why this is all so bad that it deserves a new Condemnation which describes all of that". It could also do with noting that the original Condemnation failed to adequately detail TBH's crimes, in particular their invasions - there's barely anything in it about those.

It's probably just a small change like "Appreciating that The Black Hawks have previously been condemned through SC#52, but believing that this resolution failed to adequately detail the severity of The Black Hawks' invasions, warranting a new Condemnation that both includes that and the many crimes perpetrated since the passage of SC#52".

You can probably write that better to fit your style.

[Jakker]

Yes.

I was there, it was indeed a DEN operation.

The confusion with Catholic was that I led the raid, but it was all DEN.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I was there, it was indeed a DEN operation.

The confusion with Catholic was that I led the raid, but it was all DEN.

This was why I included it in my draft, which in turn led to it finding its way into this one. In my view, if you were lead it was a joint operation, not exclusively a DEN operation. But I'm fine with taking it out if you think it's incorrect to include it.

[Jakker]

The confusion with Catholic was that I led the raid, but it was all DEN.

This was why I included it in my draft, which in turn led to it finding its way into this one. In my view, if you were lead it was a joint operation, not exclusively a DEN operation. But I'm fine with taking it out if you think it's incorrect to include it.

It's semantics and was definitely a victory for us as well, but since it was DEN's anniversary and all, it's good for the focus to be on them.

[The Stalker]

Aight new and possibly final draft posted! Thanks for the help there Sedgistan.

Of course adding that needed line meant I had to trim it up some more to make room. So i've made a few tweaks in this draft, including removing the ( ) in the toppling and harboring lines.

Let me know if folks have any last thoughts, I will likely be submitting this fairly soon.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I don't know what you did but either I didn't read it well the first time, or you made it worse on an edit. It is sloppy, the first clause has to say that there is a need created, the sentence as written doesn't make sense. Additionally the next clause "terrifying" doesn't make sense either. I stopped reading there because I'm lazy.

[The Stalker]

I don't know what you did but either I didn't read it well the first time, or you made it worse on an edit. It is sloppy, the first clause has to say that there is a need created, the sentence as written doesn't make sense. Additionally the next clause "terrifying" doesn't make sense either. I stopped reading there because I'm lazy.

Hmm, alright i'll see what I can do. It's been a bit of a struggle to keep it at the right size.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I don't know what you did but either I didn't read it well the first time, or you made it worse on an edit. It is sloppy, the first clause has to say that there is a need created, the sentence as written doesn't make sense. Additionally the next clause "terrifying" doesn't make sense either. I stopped reading there because I'm lazy.

Hmm, alright i'll see what I can do. It's been a bit of a struggle to keep it at the right size.

Indeed. I do wonder if that limit should be raised, but that's a thought for technical rather than here.

[The Stalker]

Hmm, alright i'll see what I can do. It's been a bit of a struggle to keep it at the right size.

Indeed. I do wonder if that limit should be raised, but that's a thought for technical rather than here.

Yea if I had like 50-100 more it solve a lot of the problem. With the limit being 3,500, my current draft is 3,492. >_<

[Mallorea and Riva]

Indeed. I do wonder if that limit should be raised, but that's a thought for technical rather than here.

Yea if I had like 50-100 more it solve a lot of the problem. With the limit being 3,500, my current draft is 3,492. >_<

So you can get me back up to three name drops then? Because I noticed you cut one out.

[The Stalker]

Hmm yea maybe, can you hook me up with some extra characters space? Restore that name drop for like 250, maybe you give me like 750 I add a fourth.

I've reworked the opening a bit more.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Hmm yea maybe, can you hook me up with some extra characters space? Restore that name drop for like 250, maybe you give me like 750 I add a fourth.

I've reworked the opening a bit more.

The only bribes I accept are payable in either Sealand's Dollars or the bones of a suricate that was born on the night of a waning gibbous moon, soaked in oil of oregano.

[The Stalker]

Few more small tweaks made, planning to submit this sometime tonight.

Ok, one last tweak made to bring back a shorten version of the liberation resolution line.

• The Black Hawks have provoked liberation resolutions to end border closures in Hippiedom SC#99 & South Pacific SC#108;

[The Stalker]

So I went to go submit it, but it said it was over the 3,500 limit by 14.

However my current draft is 3,492 including spaces and coding according to Microsoft Word. Anyone can easily copy-paste it into Microsoft or any character counter to see that it is indeed 3,492.

I even doubled checked with an online character counting tool and got 3,492
(http://www.charactercountonline.com/)

So I think there is an error with the size requirement. It is actually set at 3,478 not 3,500. I'm hoping the mods will be able to help. Either to change it to 3,500 or warn people it's actually 3,478.

[Conservative Values]

So I went to go submit it, but it said it was over the 3,500 limit by 14.

However my current draft is 3,492 including spaces and coding according to Microsoft Word. Anyone can easily copy-paste it into Microsoft or any character counter to see that it is indeed 3,492.

I even doubled checked with an online character counting tool and got 3,492
(http://www.charactercountonline.com/)

So I think there is an error with the size requirement. It is actually set at 3,478 not 3,500. I'm hoping the mods will be able to help. Either to change it to 3,500 or warn people it's actually 3,478.

MS Word does not count a line break as a character, but the game does. So you've probably got about 22 line breaks in the thing (keep in mind skipping a line is two line breaks).

Happy trimming.

CV

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Counted, 22 line breaks, aye. That's a bit dirty. >.>