Sedgistan wrote:Bhang Bhang Duc is right that you need to address the contents of the resolution you're looking to repeal. That's a fundamental enough principle that it's enshrined as Rule 2d.
(Note: this isn't a ruling on whether what you've drafted complies with Rule 2d, just emphasising that this is a requirement.)
My intention was that the first two clauses address the content of the resolution itself:
Acknowledging The Black Hawks as one of the most powerful raiding organisations in NationStates;
Recognising that this resolution was originally passed with the intention of condemning The Black Hawks for their vile acts;
I'm not really criticising the content of the resolution, because I don't necessarily disagree with the content of the resolution. Most of it remains relevant and correct: the problem isn't in the content, it's with how the region and greater NationStates community view the resolution.
The next three clauses address this:
Noting, however, that this condemnation is generally considered a "badge of honour" by those within the region;
Presuming the Security Council's rejection of raiding principles, symbolised by the recent election of a defender nation as WA Secretary-General;
Believing that raiding organisations do not deserve such recognition from this august body;
I will likely expand on those first two clauses to better address the resolution in my next draft... woah, what is this blasphemy - forum drafting?!
Jakker wrote:I mean if you want to give more reason to get raided when the time strikes, so be it.
I really don't think so.