PASSED: Condemn The Black Hawks

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:11 am

I can't seem to find a thread on this one. Mods: if one exists, please merge. Danke.

Condemn The Black Hawks
A resolution to express shock and dismay at a nation or region.

Category: Condemnation
Nominee: The Black Hawks
Proposed by: Defero Populus

Description: Condemn The Black Hawks

NOTING that The Black Hawks are an aggressive raiding organization.

ACKNOWLEDGING that raiding is legal, yet controversial, under-regulated, and frequently unsportsmanlike.

CONCERNED that The Black Hawks have openly targeted and raided hundreds of regions and used regional bans to permanently exert their control.

RECOGNIZING that The Black Hawks have admitted to conspiring to pass a Security Council resolution to commend their own nation by drafting the text.

CONCERNED that a vote in favor of this resolution will make World Assembly delegates and their regions targets of The Black Hawks, as has been reported following previous proposal attempts.

NOTING that such targeting is proven to have a cooling effect on free speech and the democratic process.

FURTHER NOTING that free speech and the democratic process are the sole methods of presenting or supporting a Security Council resolution.

CONCERNED that a cooling of expression and democracy paralyze the Security Council and prevent it from fulfilling its mandate.

HEREBY CONDEMNS The Black Hawks for endangering the functioning and survival of the Security Council.

Voting Ends: in 3 days 23 hours

by **Sedgistan** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:13 am

Bah, you beat me to posting it by seconds.

by **Disraeli-Gears** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:40 am

Feeding their ego is the last thing we need.
They aren't "bad" enough to be worth of a real condemnation (like Macedon); more like "they have a couple of members that are annoying to death, but overall I don't mind". Everything else (badass Condemn badge) would just be a praise of their action, and they have been pretty ... ordinary.

And I don't like the way the resolution is written either.
Against.

by **Azbaga** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 10:23 am

Many points of this resolution trouble me. A 'cooling effect on free speech' and a 'cooling effect on democracy' are not reasons to condemn a nation so publicly, further, denouncing them for legal actions fully within their rights just because you don't approve is a very uncomfortable thing for me. They've done nothing to me, and this resolution reads like an imperialist bully wrote it.

Against.

by **Mahaj WA Seat** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:22 pm

The Black Hawks should be Commended instead.

by **Metania** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:37 pm

Everyone wants to be condemned, if you listen to the same people who post in every condemnation. But that doesn't mean we can't condemn them anyway.

by **Disraeli-Gears** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:58 pm

Still they don't need a condemnation.
Unless we want to condemn mediocre (even if massive in number of regions) raiding.

Even if they have, that was did by a very small percentage of their members, and they are a far smaller threat than other groups.

by **Mahaj WA Seat** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:59 pm

Disraeli-Gears wrote:Still they don't need a condemnation.
Unless we want to condemn mediocre (even if massive in number of regions) raiding.

Even if they have, that was did by a very small percentage of their members, and they are a far smaller threat than other groups.

I wouldn't call TBH mediocre by any shot.

by **Maroza** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:04 pm

I'm still confused as to why Omigodtheykilledkenny got condemned. :unsure:

by **Disraeli-Gears** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:06 pm

Mahaj WA Seat wrote:
Disraeli-Gears wrote:Still they don't need a condemnation.
Unless we want to condemn mediocre (even if massive in number of regions) raiding.

Even if they have, that was did by a very small percentage of their members, and they are a far smaller threat than other groups.

I wouldn't call TBH mediocre by any shot.

Their top members are quite impressive with update raiding. But that's just one-two of them.
Why condemn the entire group ?

Maroza wrote:I'm still confused as to why Omigodtheykilledkenny got condemned.

That's the second type of condemnation. Recognition of badassery

by **Maroza** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:55 pm

Disraeli-Gears wrote:
Mahaj WA Seat wrote:I wouldn't call TBH mediocre by any shot.

Their top members are quite impressive with update raiding. But that's just one-two of them.
Why condemn the entire group ?

Maroza wrote:I'm still confused as to why Omigodtheykilledkenny got condemned.

That's the second type of condemnation. Recognition of badassery

Yes but a disturbing hatred of dolphins? Whats that about?

by **Disraeli-Gears** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:08 pm

Maroza wrote:Yes but a disturbing hatred of dolphins? Whats that about?

There are references to his contributions to NS, in particular his work with the General Assembly (well, not exactly the GA - some of it was when there were 'the United Nations' instead of the WA) and roleplay, written as it was a condemnation.

"Disturbing hatred of dolphins" is a recurring joke about Kennyites representative considering dolphins as "sub-human scoundrels" after an old and particularly silly UN resolution ("Protection of Dolphins Act").

by **Sedgistan** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:34 pm

Maroza wrote:I'm still confused as to why Omigodtheykilledkenny got condemned.

Not in this thread, please.

by **Metania** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:04 pm

Now, it is true that it's kind of questionable whether TBH are as deadly as the resolution says. I'm not seeing a lot of evidence, but since they aren't 'nice guys' it seems this will pass anyway. *shrug*

by **Robert Hawkins** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:14 pm

There is a line in there which will effectively stop people voting in favour of this Condemnation anyway:

CONCERNED that a vote in favor of this resolution will make World Assembly delegates and their regions targets of The Black Hawks, as has been reported following previous proposal attempts.

So if they do get condemned, the proposer is saying that TBH will be straight out raiding and taking their revenge on those who vote yes to condemn them. Not thought that out have they?

And yes, I support raiding. :twisted:

by **Angelobarker** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:56 pm

if they raid lock your regions
then ....... pwned :ugeek:

by **The Bruce** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:11 pm

I don't know about this. On the one hand, yes they are invaders. Bad invaders, bad. On the other hand, have the Black Hawks actually invaded any region that had more than 5 inactive nations in it (not counting joining bigger raider groups on their invasions). If someone could point out a region that they've destroyed or held under their thumb that had more nations (maybe even WA nations) in it and wasn't devoid of activity it I would be interested to hear about it.

From what I've been seeing lately they've been more scavengers than actual invaders, collecting huge numbers of tiny regions before they died of inactivity all by themselves. The trophies that they've been taking these days are the ones that invaders used to use as getting started training missions. They're running the table on inactive regions that are so small that most defenders aren't even bothering with opposing them. Based on this it can hardly be said that they've had any impact at all on activity in NationStates or the Security Council. Until all the regions of NationStates are reduced to tiny, inactive, founderless regions I can't see how the Black Hawks would be a threat to the NS World or merits the wording of this condemnation.

by **Lordieth** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:50 am

I'm in two minds about this. Commend or Condemn, either badge is a badge of honour, and doesn't do The Black Hawks any harm as a raider party.

Also, have they done any serious harm so far? I say no.

For those reasons, I, the current delegate of The South, do not support this condemnation at this present time.

by **Vinage** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:16 am

On behalf of my ruler, Grande Pai of Vinage, I vote No on this topic.

The Black Hawks have committed no serious threat to world peace by lapping up small regions.

by **Syritania** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:30 am

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:ACKNOWLEDGING that raiding is legal, yet controversial, under-regulated, and frequently unsportsmanlike.

I'd like to draw attention to the word 'controversial'. Many influential minorities like single parents, homosexuals, people of all kinds of religions, socialists, capitalists, etc. are controversial. We don't condemn them just because someone may not like them.

Justin B. Badd,
WA Representative of Syritania

by **The Idd** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:19 am

how do you raid? lol

by **Sedgistan** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:22 am

The Idd wrote:how do you raid? lol

See here.

by **Beytrfrigg** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:52 am

I find the idea of condemning someone for a perfectly legal activity uncomfortable at best. The Security Council is not a place to sign one's personal grudges into law, nor should it be. Therefore, I am against.

by **Cold Archivia** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:58 am

On principle, I do not like the idea of giving players the ability to judge other players AND IMPOSE THAT JUDGEMENT UPON THEM. Therefore I am against any resolution against (or for) an actual player.

by **Great Nepal** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:03 am

Against, We see no reason to condemn a raider while not doing same to defender.

PASSED: Condemn The Black Hawks

PASSED: Condemn The Black Hawks

really?

Who is online