(Draft) Condemn Vando0sa

[Funeral]

Fair point, if we were to bring up the issue of tag-raiding, would it be better done in the SC or in he GA? And while that is the concern, we are also still desiring to condemn Vandoosa whether they have one or not. The idea here was 2 birds 1 stone sort of approach.

Do you mean the general idea of tag-raiding? Or within this proposal?

If the former, I'm not exactly sure... You could start a thread in Gameplay, if the idea is to voice your concern about people engaging in the activity. I don't think there's really a place for it in the SC, as it seems to not fit within its purpose (Condemn, Commend, Liberate). I suppose you could draft something in the GA that tries to address the idea of tag-raiding, but using a fair amount of RP to make it sound like something a nation would actually engage in (something like vandalism or some such thing).

[Vando0sa]

Oh maybe repeal the old condemnation and use the content from that one to attempt a new more updated one..

[Solariia]

Do you mean the general idea of tag-raiding? Or within this proposal?

If the former, I'm not exactly sure... You could start a thread in Gameplay, if the idea is to voice your concern about people engaging in the activity. I don't think there's really a place for it in the SC, as it seems to not fit within its purpose (Condemn, Commend, Liberate). I suppose you could draft something in the GA that tries to address the idea of tag-raiding, but using a fair amount of RP to make it sound like something a nation would actually engage in (something like vandalism or some such thing).

The former. I like the idea of finding an RP solution in the GA and have/will take it up with the others involved on a plan for that.

Oh maybe repeal the old condemnation and use the content from that one to attempt a new more updated one..

This is a good point, we could push a repeal for the old one to get your current condemned.

Both ideas strike my fancy and I appreciate the input / ideas.

[BlackLight Covenant]

Further appalled at Vando0sa's leadership and The Glorious Nations of Iwaku's influence in determining raids against regions incapable of self-defense measures en masse; especially during WA updates.

Last time I checked, none of us have any influence over Van's actions. Sure, he does tend to send embassy proposals to Iwaku whenever he's in charge of a raid, but Iwaku itself plays no actual role in R/D gameplay. We sure as hell don't have any form of R/D military, anyway, nor do any of our ROs seem to care about that side of NS, so I'm not sure where you're pulling this Iwaku has influence on raiding thing from.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

The Security Council;

Believing the concept of raiding to be a reprehensible conduct against established morals accepted by the international community.

Understanding nevertheless that it's an important antagonist for defender-raider conflicts.

Observing Vando0sa’s substantial contributions to raiders in leadership and resources.

Okay so far so good, sets the scene.

Concerned though about the methods used by Vando0sa and other raiders in determining potential raiding candidates; especially during so-called 'tag-raids'.

Appalled at the heedless methods in which 'tag-raiding' candidates are selected and the passage of this information beforehand. During 'tag-raids' candidates are selected by a single condition: regions which have an Executive Delegate regardless of Founder activity. A list of candidates is then dispatched minutes before an update occurs to designated Commanders in the raiding community who execute their missions without any consideration of who they are targeting.

Complete and utter filler, flannel, whatever you like to call it. We do not need a description of the mechanics of tag raiding in a Condemnation - it adds absolutely nothing.

Further appalled at Vando0sa's leadership and The Glorious Nations of Iwaku's influence in determining raids against regions incapable of self-defense measures en masse; especially during WA updates.

So basically a repeat using different words of something you've said before.

Asserting that measures be taken by the defender-raider community to establish self-enforced boundaries for their missions to be executed within so as to not hinder the experience of other, non-participating regions.

What does this even mean?

Hereby condemns Vando0sa.
Co-authored by, Solariia

My colleagues have said that this draft is legal but legal does not equal good; and this is not good. You have done very little research on Vando0sa or the raids they have participated in and you have tried to cover this paucity of work by large amounts of filler.

I would advise you to look at the C&C works by authors such as Kuriko or Xoriet to get an idea of the level of detail required to produce a good proposal. As yours stands it is so bland you could substitute any raider puppet name in for Van's and it would make just as much sense.

[Bormiar]

What is your motivation for repealing the old condemn and writing this anyways?

[South Reinkalistan]

OOC: For the record, I don't have any strong opinions on this resolution. I'll probably vote against, as I agree somewhat with the consensus here that Vandoosa doesn't need another condemnation, and that the proposal is... lacking.

However, I can give you some help on drafting the proposal. I'm by no means an expert, but here's some things I would personally suggest you change, and a bit of feedback:

The Security Council,

Believing the concept of "raiding" to be a reprehensible conduct against established morals accepted by the international community at large. - I put "raiding" in quotations to emphasise it being a colloquial term, and added "at large" - I doubt these "established morals" would go down with raiders, who are also technically part of the international community you refer to. Best to make it clear you mean MOST of the international community.

Understanding nevertheless that it's this practice is an important antagonist for defender-raider conflicts conflicts between "raiders" and "defenders". - Just a bit of terminology I've changed to be a little bit more formal, nothing major.

Observing Vando0sa’s substantial contributions to raiders in leadership and resources. raiding, through.... - I don't know a lot about Vandoosa, so I'd advise you to quickly list some of Vandoosa's biggest condemnable actions since their last condemnation. If there are any.

Concerned though about by the methods used by Vando0sa Vando0sa has used and other raiders in determining potential raiding candidates; especially during so-called 'tag-raids'. - Just a few little changes to the wording. Not sure what this means, though :l

Appalled at the heedless methods in which 'tag-raiding' candidates are selected and the passage of this information beforehand. During 'tag-raids' candidates are selected by a single condition: regions which have an Executive Delegate regardless of Founder activity. A list of candidates is then dispatched minutes before an update occurs to designated Commanders in the raiding community who execute their missions without any consideration of who they are targeting. - No. I think it's fair to say that people don't need a definition of tag raiding, frankly.

Further appalled at Vando0sa's leadership and The Glorious Nations of Iwaku's influence in determining raids against regions incapable of self-defense measures en masse; especially during WA updates. - I don't think Iwaku is a raider region, as stated by BlackLight Covenant.

Asserting that measures be taken by the defender-raider community to establish self-enforced boundaries for their missions to be executed within so as to not hinder the experience of other, non-participating regions. - Not sure that you can directly legislate on what defenders and raiders what to do using the Security Council. I think it'd be best to revise this part completely.

Hereby condemns Vando0sa.
Co-authored by, Solariia