NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Repeal: "Condemn the Black Hawks"

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.
User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1751
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

[DRAFT] Repeal: "Condemn the Black Hawks"

Postby Minskiev » Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:00 am

Hi. I'll need a legality check on the bullet point about Clause 2. Feedback is appreciated.

This repeal is purely quality-based.
The Security Council,

Noting The Black Hawks (TBH) to be a Condemnable raider organization,

Hoping for a long list of sensible, well-written Security Council resolutions in the future,

Believing, however, that this is unachievable while SC#52 is an active resolution, for the following reasons:
  • SC#217 is a better-written resolution that condemns TBH for invading, delegate streak-breaking, espionage, and supporting coups, and leaves SC#52 unnecessary.
  • Half of SC#52 focuses on something TBH in 2011 and prior didn't do.* More specifically, it talks about proposal raiding, a mild and commonly practiced (now as quorum raiding) form of raiding that merely bumps delegates voting on proposals temporarily, and one with a small effect on the chances of a proposal due to the limitations of what can be targeted. However, TBH didn't do such. Additionally, Condemns are often (and in this case, indeed) badges of honor to raiders, so the entire Concerned clause is irrelevant. Furthermore, "targeting" a region does not cool free speech, as the only senses of free speech in the SC are about discussing in the forums and writing proposals, which are completely unrelated to a region being targeted. Thus, TBH at the time of SC#52's passage did not "endanger the functioning and survival of the Security Council".
  • The other half of SC#52 briefly discusses how TBH raids, or more specifically, "has targeted and raided hundreds of regions and used regional bans to exert their control," which is both uncondemnable and false. First, SC#52 doesn't define "targeted". Second, countless uncondemned regions have raided regions, some even more than what SC#52 mentions TBH doing as of its passing. Third, an overwhelming majority of regions have "used regional bans to exert their control," such as virtually every modern region. Fourth, if we condemned organizations for raiding a hundred regions, using the logic of SC#52, regions that defend a hundred regions would be commendable, when that is not the case. Fifth, the overwhelming majority of TBH's raids at the time were tag raids, which aren't permanent and don't use regional bans.
  • Clause 4 of SC#52 is a nothing clause; it details an idea of somehow solo-commending a member of TBH, and an idea only, as it never reached quorum. Additionally, it uses "conspiring" which implies it being secret, yet it was public.
  • Clause 2 mentions some weird and confusing language such as "surprisingly legal," "under-regulated," and "unsportsmanlike," seeming to refer to raiding as some exploit in the region system.
Disappointed that the standards for a condemnable raiding organization were once so low and that this proposal passed while treating "cooling" as plural, restating the title in the resolution to fluff it, using "concerned" and "noting" three times each because synonyms escaped the author, providing an argument against the proposal by mentioning how a vote for would get one's region attacked, and making up claims about targeting, permanently conquering, and threatening regions,

Hereby repeals: "Condemn The Black Hawks."


*to my knowledge (and to what New South Arctica has said at the time of the Condemn), there weren't any raids for the purpose of removing a delegate's vote on a proposal, (unless provoked?)
Last edited by Minskiev on Thu Sep 23, 2021 5:22 pm, edited 17 times in total.
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565 and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1751
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:01 am

Reserved for future drafts if I bother ig
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565 and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
Giovanniland
Diplomat
 
Posts: 624
Founded: Aug 10, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Giovanniland » Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:42 am

Looks good at first sight, perhaps I'll have more comments later after reading more carefully, but one thing stood out for now that I wanted to comment about.

Minskiev wrote:Aware of TBH's recent stagnation, one unfitting of an organization with two Condemnations, and disappointed that TBH can wear both its Condemnations with pride when one is far superior to the other,


I don't really like the argument of the first part of this clause, since it basically wants to repeal a condemnation because the target is inactive. If that were the case, we'd have to repeal every resolution once the target ceased to exist. In fact, Durkadurkiranistan II is a nation with two condemnations and happens to be CTE at the moment. I think the proposal has some good arguments earlier and this one just doesn't fit - so I'd remove it, as in my opinion repeals should happen because of proposal quality and not because the target is inactive.
Last edited by Giovanniland on Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Giovanniland
Guardian of the West and Minister without Portfolio
Former Speaker of the Hall of Nations of TWP (x3)
Trading Card Collector (#1 for bank, briefly #1 for deck value)
WA Author (SC#364, SC#372, SC#373)

The Kingdom of Giovanniland - Giovannilandian Artwork Ministry - The Collection Collection Thread

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9202
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:45 am

Giovanniland wrote:I don't really like the argument of the first part of this clause, since it basically wants to repeal a condemnation because the target is inactive.

The first letters of this proposal - which Minskiev says you should not "look at [...] owo" - literally read TBH IS DEAD. (They aren't: Liberal Democratic Union.)

Usually inclined to support any repeal of SC#52; not currently inclined to support what currently looks like a meme proposal on par with the ones that begin with "Noting amogus," never mine one which has been packed with a metric Kate Silverton of fluff in an attempt to poke fun at raiding as a discipline.
Last edited by Tinhampton on Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading National Populism by Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1751
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:51 am

Tinhampton wrote:
Giovanniland wrote:I don't really like the argument of the first part of this clause, since it basically wants to repeal a condemnation because the target is inactive.

The first letters of this proposal - which Minskiev says you should not "look at [...] owo" - literally read TBH IS DEAD. (They aren't: Liberal Democratic Union.)

Usually inclined to support any repeal of SC#52; not currently inclined to support what currently looks like a meme proposal on par with the ones that begin with "Noting amogus," never mine one which has been packed with a metric Kate Silverton of fluff in an attempt to poke fun at raiding as a discipline.


It's an actual proposal, no? It's also shorter (in clause count) than the proposal it's repealing.

Giovanniland wrote:
Minskiev wrote:Aware of TBH's recent stagnation, one unfitting of an organization with two Condemnations, and disappointed that TBH can wear both its Condemnations with pride when one is far superior to the other,


I don't really like the argument of the first part of this clause, since it basically wants to repeal a condemnation because the target is inactive. If that were the case, we'd have to repeal every resolution once the target ceased to exist. In fact, Durkadurkiranistan II is a nation with two condemnations and happens to be CTE at the moment. I think the proposal has some good arguments earlier and this one just doesn't fit - so I'd remove it, as in my opinion repeals should happen because of proposal quality and not because the target is inactive.


Hmm...yeah, fine.
Last edited by Minskiev on Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:56 am, edited 3 times in total.
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565 and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
Miravana
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 112
Founded: Dec 01, 2016
Democratic Socialists

Postby Miravana » Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:29 am

Minskiev wrote:
Believing The Black Hawks (TBH) to be a Condemnable raider organization,

Hoping for a long list full of sensible, well-written Security Council resolutions in the future

I'll be citing this if this passes. I agree better Condemns could be raided, so if this is going to an attempt (by admittedly a defender) to see future Condemns passed with good language then I support it. If not, this is just a way to mask the real intent many defenders may hold (not saying yourself) that they wish to strip us of a Second badge entirely.

Minskiev wrote:Half of SC#52 focuses on quorum raiding, a mild and common form of raiding that merely bumps delegates approving proposals temporarily, that is not condemnable, as many regions do this,

This last part is unnecessary and wrong. Just because many regions do something does not make it Uncondemnable. There is, in fact, more than one Condemned region. I'd also argue that based on the controversy surrounding it, Quorum raiding is condemnable, look as far as the current SC proposal to see many believe it to be wrong, if not the majority.
Lieutenant of The Black Hawks
Overseer of Blade Corps



"You are really proving our standards are lower than my height" ~Dakota
"Mira I know you're an ebil raider but this is too far" ~Fihami

User avatar
Lord Dominator
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7381
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Lord Dominator » Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:32 am

Quorum raiding is not what 52 was Condemning - at the time it referred to the occasional practice of bumping delegates voting in a given direction on a resolution in favor of those voting the opposite direction (or not at all).

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1751
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:34 am

Lord Dominator wrote:Quorum raiding is not what 52 was Condemning - at the time it referred to the occasional practice of bumping delegates voting in a given direction on a resolution in favor of those voting the opposite direction (or not at all).


Alright, that's an easy fix. Thanks.

Miravana wrote:
Minskiev wrote:
Believing The Black Hawks (TBH) to be a Condemnable raider organization,

Hoping for a long list full of sensible, well-written Security Council resolutions in the future

I'll be citing this if this passes. I agree better Condemns could be raided, so if this is going to an attempt (by admittedly a defender) to see future Condemns passed with good language then I support it. If not, this is just a way to mask the real intent many defenders may hold (not saying yourself) that they wish to strip us of a Second badge entirely.

I try to not play the game too ICly; if all I wanted to do was take away your second badge, something that doesn't affect me whatsoever, I think I'd be more of an ass about it.
Minskiev wrote:Half of SC#52 focuses on quorum raiding, a mild and common form of raiding that merely bumps delegates approving proposals temporarily, that is not condemnable, as many regions do this,

This last part is unnecessary and wrong. Just because many regions do something does not make it Uncondemnable. There is, in fact, more than one Condemned region. I'd also argue that based on the controversy surrounding it, Quorum raiding is condemnable, look as far as the current SC proposal to see many believe it to be wrong, if not the majority.


Condemnable =/= condemnable. I wouldn't Condemn the North Pacific for quorum raiding, but I suppose I'd condemn them.
Last edited by Minskiev on Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565 and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
Outer Sparta
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12949
Founded: Dec 26, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Outer Sparta » Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:40 am

Do you think there should be a replacement or should TBH be better off with having just one condemn badge? Last time I've seen this, a prior author made a draft that consisted of weak arguments like "raiders bad" and "they use it for propaganda." However, yours actually makes good arguments as to why SC52 should be repealed, which you definitely have something to work with here.
social democracy, environmental protection, universal healthcare, free college, social equality, LGBT, pro-choice,
GOP, corporate socialism, Trump, neoconservatism, white supremacy, extreme political views, corruption

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1751
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:47 am

Outer Sparta wrote:Do you think there should be a replacement or should TBH be better off with having just one condemn badge? Last time I've seen this, a prior author made a draft that consisted of weak arguments like "raiders bad" and "they use it for propaganda." However, yours actually makes good arguments as to why SC52 should be repealed, which you definitely have something to work with here.


I'm not sure if I'm one to really say how many badges an organization must have. Ideally, there would be one good proposal talking about TBH's earlier practices, and one good proposal talking about TBH's later practices.
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565 and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
Otis Milburn
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: May 01, 2020
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Otis Milburn » Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:49 am

Minskiev wrote:
Lord Dominator wrote:I try to not play the game too ICly; if all I wanted to do was take away your second badge, something that doesn't affect me whatsoever, I think I'd be more of an ass about it.

It was more of a note for others in the future, not necessarily you

User avatar
Outer Sparta
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12949
Founded: Dec 26, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Outer Sparta » Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:50 am

Minskiev wrote:
Outer Sparta wrote:Do you think there should be a replacement or should TBH be better off with having just one condemn badge? Last time I've seen this, a prior author made a draft that consisted of weak arguments like "raiders bad" and "they use it for propaganda." However, yours actually makes good arguments as to why SC52 should be repealed, which you definitely have something to work with here.


I'm not sure if I'm one to really say how many badges an organization must have. Ideally, there would be one good proposal talking about TBH's earlier practices, and one good proposal talking about TBH's later practices.

I would say two condemn badges is what TBH ideally should have, but if an updated condemn on their earlier practices does well to replace the old condemn, I would happily support that. It would be unprecedented if they were to have three condemn badges, but that's only in extraordinary situations.
social democracy, environmental protection, universal healthcare, free college, social equality, LGBT, pro-choice,
GOP, corporate socialism, Trump, neoconservatism, white supremacy, extreme political views, corruption

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1751
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:53 am

Otis Milburn wrote:
Minskiev wrote:I try to not play the game too ICly; if all I wanted to do was take away your second badge, something that doesn't affect me whatsoever, I think I'd be more of an ass about it.

It was more of a note for others in the future, not necessarily you


Of course, no offense taken.

Outer Sparta wrote:
Minskiev wrote:
I'm not sure if I'm one to really say how many badges an organization must have. Ideally, there would be one good proposal talking about TBH's earlier practices, and one good proposal talking about TBH's later practices.

I would say two condemn badges is what TBH ideally should have, but if an updated condemn on their earlier practices does well to replace the old condemn, I would happily support that. It would be unprecedented if they were to have three condemn badges, but that's only in extraordinary situations.


Sure...I guess? Not sure why I quoted this. Alright.
Last edited by Minskiev on Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565 and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
The Python
Diplomat
 
Posts: 987
Founded: Jul 24, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Python » Fri Aug 27, 2021 12:23 pm

Which one? :P

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1751
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Fri Aug 27, 2021 1:09 pm

The Python wrote:Which one? :P


Read the proposal, please. I made it excruciatingly obvious which one I'm repealing.
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565 and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
Quebecshire
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 413
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Quebecshire » Fri Aug 27, 2021 1:16 pm

Repealing one of their fancy little badges is hardly what in-character consequences the region deserves, but it's a start.

Support in principle, will try to have more constructive feedback later.
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific
Consul and LDF Command of The League
Warden in The Order of the Grey Wardens
Public Relations Director of NationStates Today
Player Résumé
"Quebecshire has proven time and time again that he is perfectly capable of standing in front of a room, full of people who hate him and continuing to defend his views." - Redacted
"[Quebec is] one of the pettiest individuals it has ever been the human race's misfortunate to spawn." - RCN
"Wow….. I never thought I would hear a moralist defender announce themselves so loudly." - Wayneactia
"I find it disappointing that Quebec has posted without saying cope." - Fauxia
"Quebec himself is unconventional." - Xoriet

User avatar
Zukchiva
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 157
Founded: Dec 06, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Zukchiva » Fri Aug 27, 2021 1:53 pm

I do not support this at its present state because a lot of it reads as "the stuff they did in 2011 is easy by modern standards, so this condemn should be repealled". I personally support the notion that much older resolutions shouldn't be repealed just because their quality is bad compared to today's standards, or the SC rules were different (re: your last clause in the Informed list).

That being said, I do think the argument that SC#52 is redundant due to SC#272 existing is a good argument. It can also be noted felt TBH wasn't truly condemnable in 2011, leading to the extremely close vote. So some mention of that concern could be made as well, I guess.
Last edited by Zukchiva on Fri Aug 27, 2021 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Derpy derpy derpy derp!

This is funny. (Posted by Druing in the UDS Discord server.)

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1751
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Fri Aug 27, 2021 1:54 pm

Zukchiva wrote:I do not support this at its present state because a lot of it reads as "the stuff they did in 2011 is easy by modern standards, so this condemn should be repealled". I personally support the notion that much older resolutions shouldn't be repealed just because their quality is bad compared to today's standards, or the SC rules were different (re: your last clause in the Informed list).

That being said, I do think the argument that SC#52 is redundant due to SC#272 existing is a good argument. It can also be noted felt TBH wasn't truly condemnable in 2011, leading to the extremely close vote. So some mention of that concern could be made as well, I guess.


Hm, seems undrafted as well.
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565 and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
Bhang Bhang Duc
Minister
 
Posts: 3142
Founded: Dec 17, 2003
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Bhang Bhang Duc » Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:10 pm

Compared to other attempts to repeal this Condemnation, this draft actually produces some reasonable arguments for its removal.

However, SC#52 does fall into that class of resolutions I think of as low hanging fruit. Yes, it’s not well written, is too general in its description of Condemnable actions, but its not exceptionally bad and no worse than many of its contemporaries.

Do TBH deserve two badges? My opinion is yes, whatever the state of play is at the moment. So, no support from me.
Former Delegate and Guardian of The West Pacific. TWP's Former Minister for World Assembly Affairs

The West Pacific's Official Welshman, Astronomer and Old Fart

Pierconium wrote:I see Funk as an opportunistic manipulator that utilises the means available to him to reach his goals. In other words, a nation after my own heart.

RiderSyl wrote:If an enchantress made it so one raid could bring about world peace, Unibot would ask raiders to just sign a petition instead.

User avatar
Kryfardo
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 6
Founded: Aug 24, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Kryfardo » Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:25 pm

Minskiev wrote:The Security Council,

Believing The Black Hawks (TBH) to be a Condemnable raider organization,

Hoping for a long list full of sensible, well-written Security Council resolutions in the future,

I’m not surprised to see this, since it seems like easy enough badgehunting and someone shows up to say “217 was better so give me the badge” every few years or so.

Informed, however, that this is unachievable while SC#52 is an active resolution, for the following reasons:
[list][*]SC#217 is a better-written resolution that condemns TBH for invading, delegate streak-breaking, espionage, and supporting coups, and leaves SC#52 unnecessary,

SC#217 was not meant to replace #52. #52 is unique in that it condemns raiding as a whole, and for being rather general instead of focussing on TBH’s actions specifically.

[*]Half of SC#52 focuses on proposal raiding, a mild and commonly practiced (as quorum raiding) form of raiding that merely bumps delegates voting on proposals temporarily, and one with a small effect on the chances of a proposal due to the limitations of what can be targeted,

Did you read the resolution at all? Quorum raiding didn’t exist back then, and the resolution didn’t mention it. Perhaps you got confused by “targeting delegates”?

[*]The other half of SC#52 briefly discusses how TBH raids, or more specifically, "has targeted and raided hundreds of regions and used regional bans to exert their control," which is uncondemnable as SC#52 doesn't define "targeted" and leaves it incredibly vague. Additionally, countless uncondemned regions have raided regions, some even more than what SC#52 mentions TBH doing as of its passing. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of regions have "used regional bans to exert their control," including every modern region except the Rejected Realms and perhaps a few rare cases.

This is a blob of vaguely related arguments with a random recruitment shoutout for TRR thrown in.

Furthermore, if we condemned organizations for raiding a hundred regions, a feat achievable in a single night, using the logic of SC#52, regions that defend a hundred regions, again a feat that's been accomplished both countless times as well as in just a night, would be commendable, when that is not the case,

This is incoherent, applies a modern standard scripts and all to 2011, and is altogether confusingly worded.

“Clause 2 mentions some weird and confusing language such as "surprisingly legal," "under-regulated," and "unsportsmanlike," seeming to refer to raiding as some exploit that's a part of a game,

Not sure how you missed it, but raiding absolutely originated from an exploit.

A poor badge-hunting attempt altogether.
Last edited by Kryfardo on Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1751
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Fri Aug 27, 2021 3:16 pm

Kryfardo wrote:
Minskiev wrote:The Security Council,

Believing The Black Hawks (TBH) to be a Condemnable raider organization,

Hoping for a long list full of sensible, well-written Security Council resolutions in the future,

I’m not surprised to see this, since it seems like easy enough badgehunting and someone shows up to say “217 was better so give me the badge” every few years or so.

But...I already have the badge? Also not sure why you're addressing a preamble when you seem to be talking about my entire proposal.
Informed, however, that this is unachievable while SC#52 is an active resolution, for the following reasons:
[list][*]SC#217 is a better-written resolution that condemns TBH for invading, delegate streak-breaking, espionage, and supporting coups, and leaves SC#52 unnecessary,

SC#217 was not meant to replace #52. #52 is unique in that it condemns raiding as a whole, and for being rather general instead of focussing on TBH’s actions specifically.

Sure, it says that raiding is condemnable....ok? It definitely does focus on TBH's actions, also. I'm not sure what you're on about.
[*]Half of SC#52 focuses on proposal raiding, a mild and commonly practiced (as quorum raiding) form of raiding that merely bumps delegates voting on proposals temporarily, and one with a small effect on the chances of a proposal due to the limitations of what can be targeted,

Did you read the resolution at all? Quorum raiding didn’t exist back then, and the resolution didn’t mention it. Perhaps you got confused by “targeting delegates”?

Guess I wasn't clear then. LD pointed out that the resolution was referring to proposal/vote raiding. I was mentioning how its successor, quorum raiding, is commonly practiced and in my opinion not Condemnable. Quite a boring potshot this is.
[*]The other half of SC#52 briefly discusses how TBH raids, or more specifically, "has targeted and raided hundreds of regions and used regional bans to exert their control," which is uncondemnable as SC#52 doesn't define "targeted" and leaves it incredibly vague. Additionally, countless uncondemned regions have raided regions, some even more than what SC#52 mentions TBH doing as of its passing. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of regions have "used regional bans to exert their control," including every modern region except the Rejected Realms and perhaps a few rare cases.

This is a blob of vaguely related arguments with a random recruitment shoutout for TRR thrown in.

I wasn't intending it to be a shoutout for TRR. I also think these arguments are rather related, considering they're all talking about the same piece of text.
Furthermore, if we condemned organizations for raiding a hundred regions, a feat achievable in a single night, using the logic of SC#52, regions that defend a hundred regions, again a feat that's been accomplished both countless times as well as in just a night, would be commendable, when that is not the case,

This is incoherent, applies a modern standard scripts and all to 2011, and is altogether confusingly worded.

Hmm, maybe I should clean it up a little. But alright alright, I'll take out the single night bits since you and others have asked for it.
“Clause 2 mentions some weird and confusing language such as "surprisingly legal," "under-regulated," and "unsportsmanlike," seeming to refer to raiding as some exploit that's a part of a game,

Not sure how you missed it, but raiding absolutely originated from an exploit.

??? if this is ironic then you should really know that's subjective, and if it isn't, I suggest you learn about little things known as jokes.
A poor badge-hunting attempt altogether.

A poor deconstructing attempt altogether, if you ask me.
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565 and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
Team Lennox
Envoy
 
Posts: 254
Founded: Feb 24, 2020
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Team Lennox » Fri Aug 27, 2021 4:01 pm

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Compared to other attempts to repeal this Condemnation, this draft actually produces some reasonable arguments for its removal.

However, SC#52 does fall into that class of resolutions I think of as low hanging fruit. Yes, it’s not well written, is too general in its description of Condemnable actions, but its not exceptionally bad and no worse than many of its contemporaries.

Do TBH deserve two badges? My opinion is yes, whatever the state of play is at the moment. So, no support from me.

Tbh I think one is enough. TBH have a history of raiding many regions (escpecially those that are my embassies and allies) and wear their condemnations with pride (the so many evil things TBH has done). But hey it my opinion yk.
HE/HIM. Use those pronouns! Do NOT assume my gender!


  • An American born citizen
  • A teenager doing teenage stuff (I guess)
  • A leftist (remind me to make a dispatch on my beliefs later)
  • A Christian with usually fundamentalists views (except for on the Patriarchist, (Bible wasn't a big thing on Gender equity) and LGBTQ+ rights, (Bible wasn't a big thing on that either) (Also the Mosaic law doesn't let us eat things like bacon and ham since in the Bible pigs are unclean animals. Like how am I to survive not eating bacon! >:( )





User avatar
Wayneactia
Minister
 
Posts: 2292
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wayneactia » Fri Aug 27, 2021 7:24 pm

Reads like a badge hunt to me.
Sarcasm dispensed liberally.

User avatar
Flanderlion
Minister
 
Posts: 2018
Founded: Nov 25, 2013
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Flanderlion » Fri Aug 27, 2021 7:32 pm

I'm for. As the pre-eminent raiding org (or actually likely that's LWU now), they've managed to mismanage raiding to such a state that defenders don't even need to try. In a time where every other group (including imps) have upped their game in the last 5 years, they have sucked out the talent from other raiding orgs, haven't helped new raiding orgs to the same extent as prior groups, fostered division between raiding groups, recruited many noobs and mismanaged them into losing interest in raiding.
As always, I'm representing myself.
Information
Wishlist

User avatar
Great Algerstonia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1831
Founded: Mar 21, 2019
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Great Algerstonia » Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:13 pm

Support, although there is a few flaws with the draft that ought to be fixed.

The other half of SC#52 briefly discusses how TBH raids, or more specifically, "has targeted and raided hundreds of regions and used regional bans to exert their control," which is uncondemnable as SC#52 doesn't define "targeted" and leaves it incredibly vague. Additionally, countless uncondemned regions have raided regions, some even more than what SC#52 mentions TBH doing as of its passing. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of regions have "used regional bans to exert their control," including every modern region except the Rejected Realms and perhaps a few rare cases. Furthermore, if we condemned organizations for raiding a hundred regions, using the logic of SC#52, regions that defend a hundred regions would be commendable, when that is not the case,

This bullet point reads far too long. Not really concise.

Exceedingly disappointed that the standards for a condemnable raiding organization were once so low and that this proposal passed while treating "cooling" as plural, restating the title in the resolution to fluff it, using "concerned" and "noting" three times each because synonyms escaped the author, and providing an argument against the proposal by mentioning how a vote for would get one's region attacked,

Can't say I really like this clause as this sets a precedent for repealing old resolutions due to poor writing compared to modern standards. I'd recommend removing this one.
"Nothing can stop us!" ~Ashli Babbitt

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Security Council

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads