[NOT MINE]Condemn The Black Hawks

[Outer Sparta]

Written by Frontier Isles, achieved quorum

The Security Council,

Acknowledging that The Black Hawks have been condemned twice by resolution SC #52 and resolution SC #217.

Noting that The Black Hawks have continued to carry out raids on other regions since the passage of resolution SC #217, and asserting that a third condemnation is needed to emphasize the constant threat that The Black Hawks pose to "interregional peace and goodwill".

Further noting that The Black Hawks have established 234 embassies with other regions; many of these regions were raided by The Black Hawks, and some of these raided regions are still controlled, or "colonized", by The Black Hawks, such as Westphalia, which has been controlled by The Black Hawks for nearly two years.

Horrified that The Black Hawks participated in the recent invasion of The Embassy, a neutral region that held 3519 embassies; the World Factbook entry of The Embassy became an advertising space for The Black Hawks and its allies following the invasion. Further shocked that the invaders dismissed the officers in The Embassy, and the invaders ordered all 3519 embassies to be shut down.

Recognizing that recently, The Black Hawks and Lily "look towards a bright future" between them and their militaries, indicating that The Black Hawks are now allied with another "invader" region.

Restating that, to emphasize the threat that The Black Hawks pose to "interregional security and goodwill", it is necessary for the Security Council to use force and condemn The Black Hawks because the purpose of the Security Council is to "[spread] interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary".

Hereby condemns The Black Hawks.

And yet another bandwagon goes on to try and condemn TBH. Not a drafted proposal either, and I don't see how they can distinguish a possible third condemnation badge against TBH.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

Not a very good attempt at a proposal, and as you say it’s another nation jumping on the bandwagon.

No support. Obviously.

[Xoriet]

Recognizing that recently, The Black Hawks and Lily "look towards a bright future" between them and their militaries, indicating that The Black Hawks are now allied with another "invader" region.

And yet another bandwagon goes on to try and condemn TBH. Not a drafted proposal either, and I don't see how they can distinguish a possible third condemnation badge against TBH.

From Condemn Lily (at vote):

In recent events, Lily and The Black Hawks, another ruthless invader agreed to “...look towards a bright future between them and the interregional military.” This not only magnifies the ruthless behavior Lily already exhibits, but it also allies them with a region that has been condemned twice.

Not even original content. Actual author, please take note that you need to be better at not paraphrasing someone else's proposal.

[Team Lennox]

What's the whole point. They've already been condemned 2 times. Lets not give em attention they want, eh?

[Outer Sparta]

Recognizing that recently, The Black Hawks and Lily "look towards a bright future" between them and their militaries, indicating that The Black Hawks are now allied with another "invader" region.

And yet another bandwagon goes on to try and condemn TBH. Not a drafted proposal either, and I don't see how they can distinguish a possible third condemnation badge against TBH.

From Condemn Lily (at vote):

In recent events, Lily and The Black Hawks, another ruthless invader agreed to “...look towards a bright future between them and the interregional military.” This not only magnifies the ruthless behavior Lily already exhibits, but it also allies them with a region that has been condemned twice.

Not even original content. Actual author, please take note that you need to be better at not paraphrasing someone else's proposal.

Do they really think that makes it look well-written by including the bright future part but also including the SC's slogan? Sure by just using a couple of phrases that seems good put together, like that automatically makes it good.

[Jedinsto]

Opposed due to the fact the thread has to say [NOT MINE] in the title.

[Outer Sparta]

Opposed due to the fact the thread has to say [NOT MINE] in the title.

I just wanted to make a thread for a potential proposal going to vote. Obviously the amount of bandwagoning in condemning raider regions is quite pervasive right now.

[Jedinsto]

Opposed due to the fact the thread has to say [NOT MINE] in the title.

I just wanted to make a thread for a potential proposal going to vote. Obviously the amount of bandwagoning in condemning raider regions is quite pervasive right now.

I didn't mean offense to you, I was pointing out the fact that they submitted without any drafting at all, making it automatically a bad proposal without me reading the contents.

[Outer Sparta]

I just wanted to make a thread for a potential proposal going to vote. Obviously the amount of bandwagoning in condemning raider regions is quite pervasive right now.

I didn't mean offense to you, I was pointing out the fact that they submitted without any drafting at all, making it automatically a bad proposal without me reading the contents.

You didn't offend me at all, but I wholeheartedly agree with your other point. If someone else posted a thread of the same proposal instead of me and put [NOT MINE], then it's definitely a sign of an undrafted proposal somehow making its way to quorum.

[Tinhampton]

Opposed due to the fact the thread has to say [NOT MINE] in the title.

Currect. I'd have preferred "[SUBMITTED] Condemn The Black Hawks (by Frontier Isles)" myself ;p

[Outer Sparta]

Opposed due to the fact the thread has to say [NOT MINE] in the title.

Currect. I'd have preferred "[SUBMITTED] Condemn The Black Hawks (by Frontier Isles)" myself ;p

I usually emphasize [NOT MINE] when posting undrafted submissions by others to distinguish whether they're mine or not (I haven't written an SC proposal but even then, I have to make that distinction). Of course I mention the author in the OP to credit them.

[Eumaeus]

The Security Council,

Acknowledging that The Black Hawks have been condemned twice by resolution SC #52 and resolution SC #217.

Noting that The Black Hawks have continued to carry out raids on other regions since the passage of resolution SC #217, and asserting that a third condemnation is needed to emphasize the constant threat that The Black Hawks pose to "interregional peace and goodwill".

Looking back at the precedent established in SC #217, the justification for passing a second condemnation was that while the original did serve its purpose of expressing disapproval for TBH's actions at the time, it "failed to fully warn NationStates of the nature and severity of The Black Hawks' invasions" through a detailed account of the regions deeds and thus, half a decade later, merited "a second condemnation detailing that and the many crimes perpetrated since the passage of SC#52".

In other words, the justification for multiple condemnations, rather than repeal and replace updates, is a consensus that the previous resolutions accomplished their symbolic duties but are either lacking in details or have become out of date enough to warrant a new outline of previously undiscussed arguments, events, and other evidence.

While this proposal's explicit justification for its own merit is not wholly inconsistent with this precedent, it is my feeling that the remainder of the proposal fails to adequately follow through with the necessary step of providing a detailed account of the condemnable acts perpetrated by The Black Hawks since the passage of SC #217 (which would include everything after the 2017 invasion of Illuminati, which I believe is the most recent event cited in the current condemnation).

Further noting that The Black Hawks have established 234 embassies with other regions: many of these regions were raided by The Black Hawks, and some of these raided regions are still controlled, or "colonized", by The Black Hawks, such as Westphalia, which has been controlled by The Black Hawks for nearly two years.

I have a personal disdain for for explicitly citing the total number of embassies in condemnations of raider regions on the basis that for any given raider region that number fluctuates constantly: case in point, the number "234" is already inaccurate. Regarding writing, this clause is pretty clunky and that semicolon should be a colon. Also, I hate to split hairs (okay, fine, no I don't) but I would argue that any given region that has been raided but still has an embassy with the raider region is still under raider control.

I think the mentioning of Westphalia as an aside rather than as an argument is a pretty good summary of my point regarding this proposal's failure to adequately argue its own merit.

Horrified that The Black Hawks participated in the recent invasion of The Embassy, a neutral region that held 3519 embassies; the World Factbook entry of The Embassy became an advertising space for The Black Hawks and its allies following the invasion. Further shocked that the invaders dismissed the officers in The Embassy, and the invaders ordered all 3519 embassies to be shut down.

Echoing other commenters, the particular focus on this specific event is heavily contributing to the perception that the author is jumping on a bandwagon. Regardless, while I don't have much information regarding the logistics of this raid, I feel that this clause misrepresents the role that TBH played in this operation. The omission of Lily, the organization that took point during the raid on the Embassy, from this clause heavily implies that TBH was the party responsible for the invasion. Additionally, this clause suffers from repetition and concision issues.

Recognizing that recently, The Black Hawks and Lily "look towards a bright future" between them and their militaries, indicating that The Black Hawks are now allied with another "invader" region.

Once again echoing other commenters: what weird recurring argument. Even if you completely ignore the implicit nature of this information, the formation of informal alliances between raider regions is A) far from a new phenomenon, B) not an activity limited to TBH, and C) not a condemnable action. That comma is unnecessary and in general the sentence does not flow well.

Restating that, to emphasize the threat that The Black Hawks pose to "interregional security and goodwill", it is necessary for the Security Council to use force and condemn The Black Hawks because the purpose of the Security Council is to "[spread] interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary".

Repetitive at both the macro and micro levels.

To sum up the proposal, its arguments include: they've invaded a bunch of regions (with an arbitrary measure of success and the sole example of Westphalia being the only supporting evidence provided), they participated in the raid on The Embassy (though the clause somewhat misrepresents the facts), and they've hinted that they intend to continue working with another raider region.

Pretending for a moment that this was a normal condemnation, rather than a supplementing condemnation, these arguments and the evidence put forward to support them would be weak at best. While I was surprised to find that the proposal is fairly well written, it is very poorly argued. While the question of whether TBH deserves a third condemnation isn't a quandary that I feel like answering, surely they have done more than this in the past 4 years since the last condemnation was passed.

The fact that this proposal dedicates as many clauses to justifying its own existence as it does to making its actual argument (3 each) is revealing of the intention behind it. If the goal was truly to condemn The Black Hawks then care would have been put into crafting a forceful admonition of their actions, yet instead the bulk of this proposal is dedicated to politicking and legal maneuvering.

The author is so concerned with justifying the passage of a third condemnation that they neglect to justify a condemnation.

[The Western Hawks]

Regarding writing, this clause is pretty clunky and that semicolon should be a colon. Also, I hate to split hairs (okay, fine, no I don't) but I would argue that any given region that has been raided but still has an embassy with the raider region is still under raider control.

Uh...it is a semicolon in the actual SC proposal, just saying...

[Frontier Isles]

Written by Frontier Isles, achieved quorum

The Security Council,

Acknowledging that The Black Hawks have been condemned twice by resolution SC #52 and resolution SC #217.

Noting that The Black Hawks have continued to carry out raids on other regions since the passage of resolution SC #217, and asserting that a third condemnation is needed to emphasize the constant threat that The Black Hawks pose to "interregional peace and goodwill".

Further noting that The Black Hawks have established 234 embassies with other regions; many of these regions were raided by The Black Hawks, and some of these raided regions are still controlled, or "colonized", by The Black Hawks, such as Westphalia, which has been controlled by The Black Hawks for nearly two years.

Horrified that The Black Hawks participated in the recent invasion of The Embassy, a neutral region that held 3519 embassies; the World Factbook entry of The Embassy became an advertising space for The Black Hawks and its allies following the invasion. Further shocked that the invaders dismissed the officers in The Embassy, and the invaders ordered all 3519 embassies to be shut down.

Recognizing that recently, The Black Hawks and Lily "look towards a bright future" between them and their militaries, indicating that The Black Hawks are now allied with another "invader" region.

Restating that, to emphasize the threat that The Black Hawks pose to "interregional security and goodwill", it is necessary for the Security Council to use force and condemn The Black Hawks because the purpose of the Security Council is to "[spread] interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary".

Hereby condemns The Black Hawks.

And yet another bandwagon goes on to try and condemn TBH. Not a drafted proposal either, and I don't see how they can distinguish a possible third condemnation badge against TBH.

Huh, you created a forum thread before I could create one.
Here's my thread:
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=499236

Anyway, I submitted this SC proposal as a rewrite of my friend's; their proposal had quite a few illegal elements.

Not a very good attempt at a proposal, and as you say it’s another nation jumping on the bandwagon.

No support. Obviously.

Look, this is my first ever SC proposal.

Not even original content. Actual author, please take note that you need to be better at not paraphrasing someone else's proposal.

Thanks for the feedback.

What's the whole point. They've already been condemned 2 times. Lets not give em attention they want, eh?

Nah, man, we gotta give 'em a third badge.

Opposed due to the fact the thread has to say [NOT MINE] in the title.

New thread: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=499236

And you, Eumaeus, thanks for all the feedback, and it IS a semicolon in the SC proposal; I don't know where you got the colon.

Uh...it is a semicolon in the actual SC proposal, just saying...

[Outer Sparta]

Since the OP made a thread of their own on the resolution, I guess we should head over there. Frontier Isles, I recommend you actually draft a resolution before you submit it so you can get feedback from the community and have a much bigger chance of catching grammatical errors and other mistakes.