[DRAFT] Repeal "Condemn Blackhelm Confederacy"

[Kylia Quilor]

The Security Council,

GRANTING that the crimes attributed to Blackhelm Confederacy in SC # 59 are documented

AGREEING with the original resolution that the crimes of Blackhelm Confederacy are indeed immoral acts that should be in principle condemned by and opposed by this body,

NOTING, however, that the crimes attributed to this nation are neither exceptional nor noteworthy in of themselves,

DRAWING ATTENTION TO, the Security Council's precedent of repealing resolutions commending or condemning nations that are, regardless of their moral character, unexceptional, as established in the repeals of SC #1, SC #43, SC # 44, SC #45, SC #79, SC #86, SC #107, SC #158, SC #220, SC #249 and SC #336,

ASSERTING that the writing of SC #59 is middling at best and amateurish at worst, running counter to the many and sundry excellently written resolutions passed by this august body,

SPECIFICALLY NOTING the repeals of SC #43, SC #123, SC #184, SC #187, SC #192, SC #299, SC #300, SC #302, SC #336 and SC #342 all include references to the poor quality either in writing or argumentation of the repealed resolutions, all of which establish a further precedent that the Security Council values well-written and well-argued proposals,

ADDITIONALLY NOTING that the above argument is further emphasized by the fact that in the case of the repeals of SC #44, SC #123, SC #184, SC #300, as well as in other instances, better resolutions were later proposed that performed a much better job of accomplishing their stated objectives,

INFORMING the World Assembly that Blackhelm Confederacy has done very little internationally in recent years, and has largely lapsed into effective isolation, rendering it of minimal threat to the world at large in the modern day,

FINALLY NOTING that multiple Security Council Condemnations, including but not limited to SC #37, SC #42, SC #56, SC #105, SC #122 and SC #127 were repealed when the nations or regions condemned ceased to be a threat to international or interregional good order,

CONCLUDING that SC #59 therefore violates several established precedents of the Security Council requiring quality, content and targets of its condemnations and commendations,

BELIEVING that it is incumbent on the Security Council to ensure that its resolutions reflect only the highest standards of writing and argumentation

Hereby repeals SC #59 Condemn Blackhelm Confederacy

While trawling through SC resolutions looking for a specific one about a week ago, I stumbled across this resolution from 2011. I was stunned it was still on the books because a lot of old, not very well written resolutions have long since been repealed in one form or another. And this one is really not very well written, nor exceptionally remarkable - roleplay condemnations are all well and good, but most of the ones that still stand were both better written and reflect much more specific and noteworthy immoral acts. Examples being: both Condemnations of Milograd (X, X) Condemn Automagfreak (X) and more recently, the condemnations of Tinfect (X) and United World Order (X)

The resolution wouldn't get out of my head, so I decided I might as well try my hand at a repeal. There's no real stakes about this, apart from the fact that the original resolution offends me on an aesthetic level, but that seemed like a good enough reason to do the repeal to me. Maybe Blackhelm really deserves a condemnation - those roleplay threads linked in the referenced original SC thread (see below) didn't seem to support that, but maybe there's better evidence elsewhere, or since.

Of course, having never written an SC resolution before, and not being a roleplayer versed in the customs of roleplaying or roleplay condemnations, this could be a terribly written repeal, or maybe the guy really deserves the condemnation as a badge for being a standout player, as happens with skilled 'evil' Gameplayers. Still feels like if he deserves a condemnation, he deserves a better one, but that's why this is still just a draft.

Anyway, here is the original SC Thread where it was debated/discussed, which also contains the links to the various evidence the author drew on. it's also worth noting that nearly all the nations Blackhelm Confederacy offended against are also now CTE, but I couldn't find a good way to weave that in.

Repeal of SC #1
Repeal of SC #37
Repeal of SC #42
Repeal of SC#43
Repeal of SC #44
Repeal of SC #45
Repeal of SC #56
Repeal of SC #79
Repeal of SC #86
Repeal of SC #105
Repeal of SC #122
Repeal of SC #123
Repeal of SC #127
Repeal of SC #158
Repeal of SC #184
Repeal of SC #187
Repeal of SC #192
Repeal of SC #249
Repealof SC #299
Repeal of SC #300
Repeal of SC #302
Repeal of SC #336
Repeal of SC #342

[Wrapper]

Who gives a crap about a laundry list of repeals of old resolutions? Just give us the reasons why this particular resolution should be repealed.

[Kylia Quilor]

The reasons are given - Blackhelm's 'Crimes' are medicore, the nation is barely active and the original resolution wasn't very well written. The mentions of various repeals are establishing that the SC does indeed have a longstanding precedent of repealing resolutions on grounds of medicore crimes or being badly written or poorly argumented.

[BlazeFirexd]

The reasons are given - Blackhelm's 'Crimes' are medicore, the nation is barely active and the original resolution wasn't very well written. The mentions of various repeals are establishing that the SC does indeed have a longstanding precedent of repealing resolutions on grounds of medicore crimes or being badly written or poorly argumented.

i would love to see u write a beautiful commendation or condemnation of some nation or region we want to know the benchmark

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

Unless you're going to be writing a replacement of a condemnation recognising a well-regarded and deserving RPer, or there is one in the works already, opposed.

[Kylia Quilor]

The reasons are given - Blackhelm's 'Crimes' are medicore, the nation is barely active and the original resolution wasn't very well written. The mentions of various repeals are establishing that the SC does indeed have a longstanding precedent of repealing resolutions on grounds of medicore crimes or being badly written or poorly argumented.

i would love to see u write a beautiful commendation or condemnation of some nation or region we want to know the benchmark

I already mentioned several resolutions here in the OP post that seemed to be much better roleplay condemnations passed by the SC.

@MadJack - Like I said, I had no idea if the guy was indeed well-regarded as a player and if that was one of the factors in the condemnation, as has been the case for roleplay condemnations before. If that's the case, that does change the situation. The original SC thread gave no such indications. Was he such a player?

[Fauxia]

I think there's a bunch of major roadblocks here. I'm not super comfortable with the idea of GPers repealing RP commendations and condemnations. It's not our segment of the game and I don't think we fully have the right to make judgments about it. Thus, even if the writing isn't up to snuff, we ought to repeal and replace rather than simply repeal. Considering the resolution is ten years old and I have no idea whether the nation still does anything, I'm not sure an adequate one is possible.

[Wrapper]

The reasons are given - Blackhelm's 'Crimes' are medicore, the nation is barely active and the original resolution wasn't very well written. The mentions of various repeals are establishing that the SC does indeed have a longstanding precedent of repealing resolutions on grounds of medicore crimes or being badly written or poorly argumented.

I know the reasons are given. That's why I said "Just give us the reasons why this particular resolution should be repealed." You don't need a list of other resolutions that have been repealed, because, like I said, no one gives a crap about that.

[Nova Vandalia]

I can't give you much advice on what needs added or changes in the resolution but I'm personally for this.

The SC has damned well proven before that being badly written is more than enough of a reason to repeal a commend or condemn from a worthy person and also that it is perfectly fine with doing so without a replacement. I also can't agree with the idea that That GPers shouldn't pass judgment on an RP based commend or condemn. If they didn't want other passing judgment on them then they shouldn't have brought it to the SC at all when the initial condemn was created. If someone things this individual is worthy than they can write a better on up but it's not on the repeal author to do so.

So the initial one isn't up to snuff, full support.

[Kylia Quilor]

I think there's a bunch of major roadblocks here. I'm not super comfortable with the idea of GPers repealing RP commendations and condemnations. It's not our segment of the game and I don't think we fully have the right to make judgments about it. Thus, even if the writing isn't up to snuff, we ought to repeal and replace rather than simply repeal. Considering the resolution is ten years old and I have no idea whether the nation still does anything, I'm not sure an adequate one is possible.

He doesn't. I checked. Unless he's active on an offsite RP forum, anyway.

I don't really agree with this argument, but I will grant that there is some merit to the idea that GPers shouldn't repeal RP C&Cs and vice-versa. There's a certain amount of seperation in the worlds, and generally, I agree that keeping them separate is good. I just think in this case, the quality of the original resolution merits it.

I know the reasons are given. That's why I said "Just give us the reasons why this particular resolution should be repealed." You don't need a list of other resolutions that have been repealed, because, like I said, no one gives a crap about that.

A resolution that said "these crimes are mediocre and the original resolution isn't very well written", even fluffed up, wouldn't be all that great either. But I actually do give a crap about previous SC resolutions and the precedent they set.

That said, I probably did go a little overboard in listing every (or almost) relevant repeal in the text of the proposal itself. Something to correct on a next draft.

@Nova Vandalia: Thank you ^^

[Unibot III]

A week ago you suggested you couldn’t imagine an author following Cormac’s lead and repealing another condemnation on technical grounds without a replacement ready.

Are we sure this is how the WASC should operate? Nitpick over the quality of the text without any real intent to improve or constructively approach these resolutions?

Maybe it is a crap resolution, but it appears to have been a well deserved recognition. This body has never in the past pursued technical repeals without evidence that a replacement is secure. I think it’s disingenuous that yourself and Cormac continue to promote this new trend.

It’s not in the spirit of how this Assembly has proceeded before in the cases of poorly written resolutions like “Commend Kandarin” or “Condemn Macedon.” I think the WASC community should try to stomp out this trend before it’s popularized. Repeals are nice for adding a notch to one’s belt, but not at the expense of deserving nominees and the integrity of the Assembly.

[Outer Sparta]

A week ago you suggested you couldn’t imagine an author following Cormac’s lead and repealing another condemnation on technical grounds without a replacement ready.

Are we sure this is how the WASC should operate? Nitpick over the quality of the text without any real intent to improve or constructively approach these resolutions?

Maybe it is a crap resolution, but it appears to have been a well deserved recognition. This body has never in the past pursued technical repeals without evidence that a replacement is secure. I think it’s disingenuous that yourself and Cormac continue to promote this new trend.

It’s not in the spirit of how this Assembly has proceeded before in the cases of poorly written resolutions like “Commend Kandarin” or “Condemn Macedon.” I think the WASC community should try to stomp out this trend before it’s popularized. Repeals are nice for adding a notch to one’s belt, but not at the expense of deserving nominees and the integrity of the Assembly.

It does seem like cherry picking repeals of old resolutions because they're not at the upmost of quality compared to now is not good practice. If there's reason, then I would support one. I don't think I will be on board with this one.

[Bormiar]

Hard sell.

SC resolutions have improved greatly over time. The standard when I joined NS four years ago is certainly far less than the standard today. To repeal a resolution for poor quality when that resolution matched the quality at the time is tantamount to suggesting that all resolutions be repealed in time. Without replacement, this becomes even more absurd.

Some people like old resolutions for their historical value. Some people (like you) are unhappy with the poor quality, but they offer replacements.

If your precedent argument were really true, you wouldn’t have to argue it at all— everyone would already agree with you. But it’s not the case that we repeal old resolutions for poor quality. We repeal resolutions for quality that doesn’t match the standard quality when they were written (e.g. commend Halo), and some authors throw in bad quality as filler for a strong repeal. Condemn Macedon (and I think there’s a 10KI repeal / replace in the works) is the closest thing we have to what you’re doing, but it came with replacement.

[Electrum]

Unfortunately, I don't think this is a good idea.

Blackhelm Confederacy was part of a longstanding well-known RP region called Astyria. I certainly remember them being around at least 5-7 years ago.

The region as a whole, including Blackhelm, had a lot of good history over the past and it would be a shame to lose that with a repeal, especially given that this is the only nation in that region to have received a SC C/C.

My point made in an earlier repeal attempt still stands. There are so few roleplay resolutions from the early days of the Security Council. Astyria, I believe, had many nations which were thoroughly deserving of a C/C.

ASSERTING that the writing of SC #59 is middling at best and amateurish at worst, running counter to the many and sundry excellently written resolutions passed by this august body,

You can say that about any of the early resolutions -- but no one is rushing to repeal Commend Kandarin or Commend Goobergunchia (apologies to Todd, if you're reading this).

ADDITIONALLY NOTING that the above argument is further emphasized by the fact that in the case of the repeals of SC #44, SC #123, SC #184, SC #300, as well as in other instances, better resolutions were later proposed that performed a much better job of accomplishing their stated objectives,

I don't see you proposing a replacement -- if you were serious on this point, I think you would have had one up your sleeve. It's a bit hard now to trawl back through the forums to posts in 2011 onwards given the restrictions on search, as well as the fact that RP has lost a lot of history with nswiki's data going missing. There's some residual stuff on iiwiki though not a lot of it.

INFORMING the World Assembly that Blackhelm Confederacy has done very little internationally in recent years, and has largely lapsed into effective isolation, rendering it of minimal threat to the world at large in the modern day,

So commendations and condemnations should be repealed off people who have retired from the game? Really? Even if they did something significant that was once considered commend or condemn worthy?

FINALLY NOTING that multiple Security Council Condemnations, including but not limited to SC #37, SC #42, SC #56, SC #105, SC #122 and SC #127 were repealed when the nations or regions condemned ceased to be a threat to international or interregional good order,

Most, if not all of these relate to gameplay. Being a roleplay menace is not the same. Furthermore, for the one resolution that was related to roleplay, the repeal was issued at the time. If people had a problem with regards to the actions of Blackhelm not being condemn worthy, they would have repealed it at the time.

Edit: Edited my words to be a bit more helpful

[Kylia Quilor]

Going through the posts in order:

A week ago you suggested you couldn’t imagine an author following Cormac’s lead and repealing another condemnation on technical grounds without a replacement ready.

First of all, The Pacific and Blackhelm Confederacy are not the same thing, and repealing their condemnations without replacement are two very different discussions.

Secondly, My opposition to the repeal of Condemn The Pacific was made A) Shortly after I returned to NS and B) With the context of who the region the Pacific has been and what it has done. Since then, I've had time to learn about what has happened with The Pacific in the interevening time, and what the situation is. While I am not going to cheerlead the repeal of their condemnation, it is no longer something I have any strong feelings against, and can at least better appreciate the arguments for.

Are we sure this is how the WASC should operate? Nitpick over the quality of the text without any real intent to improve or constructively approach these resolutions?

Yes

Maybe it is a crap resolution, but it appears to have been a well deserved recognition. This body has never in the past pursued technical repeals without evidence that a replacement is secure.

We have. I have listed numerous repeals in the text of the resolution - and provided links below - many of which partially or wholly technical, that didn't end up getting a follow up. The SC has passed plenty of bad C&Cs on nations and regions that never deserved them, and then repealed them later.

I think it’s disingenuous that yourself and Cormac continue to promote this new trend.

What does Cormac have to do with anything? You're acting like Cormac was the first person to propose repealing the Pacific's Condemnation. He's not. He was very specifically proposing a rival draft to someone else. What the hell are you on about? And while I have gotten along with Cormac socially in the past and so far now, I would appreciate you not acting as though there's some political synergy between us, because there isn't.

It’s not in the spirit of how this Assembly has proceeded before in the cases of poorly written resolutions like “Commend Kandarin” or “Condemn Macedon.”

But it is in the spirit of another of other repeals I've mentioned.

It does seem like cherry picking repeals of old resolutions because they're not at the upmost of quality compared to now is not good practice. If there's reason, then I would support one. I don't think I will be on board with this one.

Why is it bad practice?

SC resolutions have improved greatly over time. The standard when I joined NS four years ago is certainly far less than the standard today. To repeal a resolution for poor quality when that resolution matched the quality at the time is tantamount to suggesting that all resolutions be repealed in time. Without replacement, this becomes even more absurd.

Some people like old resolutions for their historical value. Some people (like you) are unhappy with the poor quality, but they offer replacements.

I'm not convinced a replacement is even merited, which is why I never proposed one. When I looked at the original SC thread, and the links provided as proof of how vile and evil Blackhelm Confederacy was, I didn't see anything that really stood out as them being worthy of condemnation, compared to numerous other roleplay condemnations the SC has passed. So I didn't offer one, as I didn't think it was necessary.

My point made in an earlier repeal attempt still stands. There are so few roleplay resolutions from the early days of the Security Council. Astyria, I believe, had many nations which were thoroughly deserving of a C/C.

Huh. I didn't even know there was a recent repeal thread.

And if the condemnation is a reflection on a player or group of players that merited that recognition, then that changes the subject entirely. As I said right at the start, I wasn't aware of the player had deserved the badge of honor for other reasons (as the SC thread made no mention of anything of the sort), and it does change the nature of the original resolution, poor technical quality or not.

I don't see you proposing a replacement -- if you were serious on this point, I think you would have had one up your sleeve. It's a bit hard now to trawl back through the forums to posts in 2011 onwards given the restrictions on search, as well as the fact that RP has lost a lot of history with nswiki's data going missing. There's some residual stuff on iiwiki though not a lot of it.

I didn't say we should do one, or that I intended to do one, just that the replacement of bad resolutions further emphasized that the SC has exhibited a longstanding desire to get rid of poorly written resolutions.

So commendations and condemnations should be repealed off people who have retired from the game? Really? Even if they did something significant that was once considered commend or condemn worthy?

In some cases, perhaps. Like I said, it's different if this is a 'badge of honor' condemnation for a meritorious player.

Most, if not all of these relate to gameplay. Being a roleplay menace is not the same. Furthermore, for the one resolution that was related to roleplay, the repeal was issued at the time. If people had a problem with regards to the actions of Blackhelm not being condemn worthy, they would have repealed it at the time.

The point being that it's not worthy now, or so it seemed when I wrote the resolution.

----

As I said from the start, this repeal could very well be crap, or the nation really does deserve it for reasons that didn't seem to come up in the SC thread. It's a proposal because a resolution offends my aesthetic sensibilities in regards to resolution quality, not because there are any significant stakes. I'm certainly not married to this repeal, or any repeal. Given the information regarding the context of the Blackhelm Confederacy and a historical relevance to the condemnation (something that no one established was the case yet in the thread before Electrum brought it up), I'm certainly willing to - and indeed will - rethink this repeal, and whether or not it offends my sensibilities enough to merit further research to see if I could/wanted to write a replacement condemnation if I believed it merited, or if I just withdraw the project entirely, or anything else.

[Outer Sparta]

I do agree that a proper replacement should be pursued if the original resolution were to be repealed. I don't agree with repealing an old resolution just because it's an old resolution, because that just reeks of a badge hunt without anything substantive. SC1 needed a repeal and replace. I don't see the same happening for this one unless you have a replacement ready.

[Kylia Quilor]

I do agree that a proper replacement should be pursued if the original resolution were to be repealed. I don't agree with repealing an old resolution just because it's an old resolution, because that just reeks of a badge hunt without anything substantive. SC1 needed a repeal and replace. I don't see the same happening for this one unless you have a replacement ready.

My argument was never 'repeal because it's old' it was 'repeal because it's badly written and the crimes attributed to the nation are not on the scale that merits condemnation'

Regardless of whether or not I pursue this matter further, please at least represent my argument accurately.

[Lenlyvit]

I do agree that a proper replacement should be pursued if the original resolution were to be repealed. I don't agree with repealing an old resolution just because it's an old resolution, because that just reeks of a badge hunt without anything substantive. SC1 needed a repeal and replace. I don't see the same happening for this one unless you have a replacement ready.

My argument was never 'repeal because it's old' it was 'repeal because it's badly written and the crimes attributed to the nation are not on the scale that merits condemnation'

Regardless of whether or not I pursue this matter further, please at least represent my argument accurately.

Even though the crimes don't seem on a condemnable scale now doesn't mean they weren't or didn't seem so at the time of passage. We have to remember that this proposal was written and passed in 2011, a time when the character limit was 3500 characters and it was only two years after the forums switched from Jolt to these ones. While this proposal is only 1300 some-odd characters, and could have been bigger, at the time it accurately described why Blackhelm deserved condemnation.

Blackhelm had three years on the old Jolt forums, being founded in 2006. They also have two years of role playing on this forum before they were officially condemned. It seems like they were well deserving from my brief glances on this forum of their forum posts, but it's very hard to search the Jolt archives unless you want to click on and look at every archived thread for Blackhelm.

[Outer Sparta]

I do agree that a proper replacement should be pursued if the original resolution were to be repealed. I don't agree with repealing an old resolution just because it's an old resolution, because that just reeks of a badge hunt without anything substantive. SC1 needed a repeal and replace. I don't see the same happening for this one unless you have a replacement ready.

My argument was never 'repeal because it's old' it was 'repeal because it's badly written and the crimes attributed to the nation are not on the scale that merits condemnation'

Regardless of whether or not I pursue this matter further, please at least represent my argument accurately.

Maybe look into the context of the condemnation and see the circumstances of its passage. That might get you a more accurate picture of what things were like back in the day and what Blackhelm Confederacy did.

[Bormiar]

How would you know how condemnable Blackhelm Confederacy is? You said yourself you're not a roleplayer and aren't familiar with roleplay.

[Praeceps]

While this repeal proposal can be improved, I would support a repeal of the target resolution as it is poorly written. Given that the target nation still exists, it is quite possible for those believing that the nation is worthy of recognition to write another condemnation for it. I think it's sufficient to make the argument that the present text does not convincingly make the argument that the target is worthy underneath our current standards.

[Outer Sparta]

While this repeal proposal can be improved, I would support a repeal of the target resolution as it is poorly written. Given that the target nation still exists, it is quite possible for those believing that the nation is worthy of recognition to write another condemnation for it. I think it's sufficient to make the argument that the present text does not convincingly make the argument that the target is worthy underneath our current standards.

Certainly if one can make the arguments that the current condemnation is not sufficient enough to highlight the nominee's accomplishments, then it's a good case to repealing older resolutions. However, the present draft does not do a good job at it and I suggest the OP look into how RP-related commends/condemns are done.

[Kylia Quilor]

My argument was never 'repeal because it's old' it was 'repeal because it's badly written and the crimes attributed to the nation are not on the scale that merits condemnation'

Regardless of whether or not I pursue this matter further, please at least represent my argument accurately.

Maybe look into the context of the condemnation and see the circumstances of its passage. That might get you a more accurate picture of what things were like back in the day and what Blackhelm Confederacy did.

I did. How many freaking times do I have to say I read the original SC thread and the provided evidence? Christ on a goddamn bike people!

[Kylia Quilor]

How would you know how condemnable Blackhelm Confederacy is? You said yourself you're not a roleplayer and aren't familiar with roleplay.

I can read a roleplay thread and judge the merits of relative sins.

And while I don't roleplay on NS, I do roleplay. Including Nation roleplay.

[Bormiar]

How would you know how condemnable Blackhelm Confederacy is? You said yourself you're not a roleplayer and aren't familiar with roleplay.

I can read a roleplay thread and judge the merits of relative sins.

And while I don't roleplay on NS, I do roleplay. Including Nation roleplay.

The three NS role players who commented in this thread all said he was deserving. You might need a stronger argument than you just don’t feel it’s enough.

Edit: That being said, I see where you’re coming from, and don’t mean to discredit your opinion or knowledge of roleplay. I’m just not convinced, and I don’t think others will be.