[SC - Failed] Repeal: Condemn The Black Hawks

Status
Not open for further replies.
mcmasterdonia

mcmasterdonia

Just like a queef in the wind, so is life
-
-
-
TNP Nation
McMasterdonia
sc.jpg

Repeal: “Condemn The Black Hawks”
Category: Repeal | Target: SC#52
Proposed by: Tinhampton | Onsite Topic

​
Security Council Resolution #52 “Condemn The Black Hawks” shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

THE SECURITY COUNCIL:

ADAMANT that every resolution it passes should act as an accessible guide to the historical and present context and actions of its subject, combining a certain level of detail supported by empirical evidence with prompts for further research by world leaders into the subject's nature;

CONCERNED that the target resolution's cult status as a "symbolic Condemnation of invasion" arises from the poor choice of terms it uses to describe The Black Hawks (TBH) - any organised group of raiders, not just TBH, can be described as "aggressive," unpoliced and overly ban-happy - and in spite of its flagrant inferiority to SC#217, a thorough criticism of the Black Hawks' innumerable horrors;

BEMUSED at SC#52's claims that TBH threatened "the functioning and survival of the Security Council" at the time by fuelling "a cooling effect on free speech and... democracy," which the authoring delegation has admitted is a blanket reference to TBH's general raiding activity, as expanded upon by SC#217;

NOTING, however, that this "cooling effect" could also be implied to include the mere targeting of regions whose WA Delegates supported SC#52, when - regardless of whether this "targeting" ever occurred, and by the admission of some notable Black Hawks of the era - TBH did not invade any region simply because of its stance on the target resolution;

OBSERVING that the Black Hawks of 2011 specialised in small-scale tag raiding (at the time, TBH's record tag run was a mere 16 regions), where only cosmetic changes are applied and natives are seldom banned; while certainly upsetting to regional communities, the practice is often non-destructive and has negligible potential to destroy the SC's innately democratic nature;

RECOGNISING that The Black Hawks' failed self-Commendation of March 2011 alluded to in SC#52 was drafted by Soaring Tikal, an active but minor Black Hawk (later a Lieutenant in TBH and, as Tikal Wolf, the Khan of Lone Wolves United) which had not been told to prepare the draft by their superiors; the hypothesis of an actual "conspiracy" amongst Black Hawks to Commend themselves must be rejected in lieu of any evidence beyond what has been stated here; and

HOPING to dissociate itself from a resolution so lacklustre - and even fictitious at times - that it regularly loses sight of The Black Hawks' true nature in favour of unqualified rhetoric:

HEREBY REPEALS SC#52 "Condemn The Black Hawks."
Click to expand...
​
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
 
This is the third time that the Security Council has voted upon a repeal of the original condemn The Black Hawks resolution. Raider groups consider condemnations such as this to be a badge of honour, a recognition of the role they play as the villains within the context of military-based gameplay. The original resolution (SC #52) is both of historical significance and is a snapshot in time of The Black Hawk’s early contribution to NationStates. It would be very difficult and unlikely that this resolution, if it were to be repealed, would be replaced by a more detailed resolution that covered that early history of The Black Hawks and their influence on the multiverse.

The Ministry of World Assembly Affairs believes that little has changed since the last repeal attempt of this resolution. The Black Hawks are deserving of both of their condemnations and continue to be a real threat to founderless regions. Therefore the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote AGAINST this proposal.
 
Last edited:
I am posting this here as it looks like it might reach the queue and it is a resolution worthy of our attention. I refer you also to a previous attempt at such a repeal here.

The Ministry recommendation at the time was for a vote AGAINST. Quoting Sil Dorsett here:

Sil Dorsett:
Raider groups usually view condemnations as badges of honour, and The Black Hawks are no exception. It is the opinion of the ministry that condemnations should be reserved for individuals and organizations that can maintain their role as an in character villain while being a respectable part of the community. We would note that this is exactly what The Black Hawks have done since their founding and they have had a lasting impact on military-based game play. The ministry believes that The Black Hawks are deserving of both of their condemnations, as at the time of the repeal targets’ writing, the threat posed by The Black Hawks was very real and while they may not have been a threat to feeder or sinker regions, or regions whose founders were still in existence, they did pose a threat to founderless regions.

It is for these reasons that the Ministry of WA Affairs recommends a vote against the resolution.
Click to expand...

In my view, nothing substantial has changed to warrant a repeal of the original resolution. The Black Hawks are one of the oldest and most consistently active raiding groups still in the game. The original resolution is of historical significance, yes, but The Black Hawks also continue to play a significant role to this day and it is for that reason in my mind that the original resolution should be allowed to stand as it is. Comparisons have been made to the repeal of Condemn Macedon, which was the first raiding region condemned by the Security Council. The key difference is that Macedon has been long dead - unlike The Black Hawks who have continued to play the villain and have had a far greater and lasting impact on military gameplay. The Black Hawks continues to be deserving of both of its condemnations.

So.. obviously. Against.
 
While my vote doesn't count since my WA is off trashing Vanq's former region, I am Against.
mcmasterdonia:
Comparisons have been made to the repeal of Condemn Macedon, which was the first raiding region condemned by the Security Council. The key difference is that Macedon has been long dead - unlike The Black Hawks who have continued to play the villain and have had a far greater and lasting impact on military gameplay. The Black Hawks continues to be deserving of both of its condemnations.
Click to expand...
I would like to note personally that Macedon's was also repealed with the intention of replacing it with more better information on the replacement. Outside of no indication of a willing author for such a replacement (who wouldn't be self-condeming their region), more information with which to actually write a replacement simply does not exist. I've personally check the TBH forum, which turns out to post-date the first Condemn by several months (the prior ones are either destroyed, inaccessible, or Tapatalked to my knowledge), the NS forums lack the information, and the only other potential sources are either defenders or past/present members of TBH who'd fall under the self-condemnation bit. In essence, inaccurate or not, the existing original Condemnation of TBH is superior to the inability to write a new one with actually better information (the 2nd one covers 2011-2017, and 2017-present isn't exactly condemnable itself or a suitable replacement in general).
 
Praetor:
For.

I have no idea why we are against a resolution which is proposing to repeal a resolution which is factually incorrect.
Click to expand...

Factually incorrect seems to be overstating it. Rather like the original resolution, it’s overstated in parts.

Secondly, I’ve stated some reasons people were against it the last time this was attempted and why we should remain against it now.

The old resolution is also a snapshot in the time it was written and passed. A new proposal wouldn’t be written to cover those early events and so this is what we have.

This will be at vote this coming update.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Factually incorrect seems to be overstating it. Rather like the original resolution, it’s overstated in parts.

Secondly, I’ve stated some reasons people were against it the last time this was attempted and why we should remain against it now.

The old resolution is also a snapshot in the time it was written and passed. A new proposal wouldn’t be written to cover those early events and so this is what we have.

This will be at vote this coming update.
Click to expand...
It's not an overstatement to call the original resolution factually inaccurate.

There are two points in which the resolution is wrong; TBH conspiring to pass a commendation on themselves and that TBH has targeted Delegates based on voting in the WA.

On the former, the individual was new to TBH and not a representative with no evidence of a conspiracy existing. Additionally, it states to "commend their own nation"... which is inaccurate as it is their region which was targeted for commendation, not a nation.

Secondly, there is no evidence to suggest—and a conspicuous lack of such—that TBH threatened Delegacies based on how they voted in the WA. This entire concept is relatively new to NS.

Collectively, these points make up 5/8 of the substantive clauses in the original resolution. The other three clauses are rather general, eg. literally just calling TBH a raiding organization. As such, I don't think it's an overstatement to call the original resolution factually inaccurate.

Furthermore, what are these early events which are mentioned in the original resolution which are of prominence? I don't see many given how poorly the original resolution was done. As well, the duplication rule would not be in effect anymore once a repeal was through; a new proposal could be written to cover those "early events" (although I see none mentioned barring the commendation attempt which as previously mentioned, is factually inaccurate).
 
mcmasterdonia:
Factually incorrect seems to be overstating it. Rather like the original resolution, it’s overstated in parts.

Secondly, I’ve stated some reasons people were against it the last time this was attempted and why we should remain against it now.

The old resolution is also a snapshot in the time it was written and passed. A new proposal wouldn’t be written to cover those early events and so this is what we have.

This will be at vote this coming update.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, I'd note that the ministry opinion published previously contained no reference to the actual quality of the repeal proposal. While factors outside the proposal can help determine a stance, it's pretty ridiculous that the proposal text is not talked about at all in an IFV. This ministry has previously opposed proposals based on the quality of writing, even if the nominee did deserve a badge (the recent Commend TRR comes into mind), so I find it rather hypocritical that the only reasoning given here is "they deserve 2 badges", despite the factual inaccuracies and lack of any concrete detail about TBH.
 
@TlomzKrano, why does the IFV not mention anything about the contents of the original resolution?

Additionally, the IFV stats that: "The original resolution (SC #52) is both of historical significance and is a snapshot in time of The Black Hawk's early contribution to NationStates."

Can you mention how the original resolution is a "snapshot in time of The Black Hawk's early contribution"? What are these contributions mentioned in the original resolution?
 
mcmasterdonia:
sc.jpg

Repeal: “Condemn The Black Hawks”
Category: Repeal | Target: SC#52
Proposed by: Tinhampton | Onsite Topic


​
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
Click to expand...
 
Praetor:
@TlomzKrano, why does the IFV not mention anything about the contents of the original resolution?

Additionally, the IFV stats that: "The original resolution (SC #52) is both of historical significance and is a snapshot in time of The Black Hawk's early contribution to NationStates."

Can you mention how the original resolution is a "snapshot in time of The Black Hawk's early contribution"? What are these contributions mentioned in the original resolution?
Click to expand...
?
 
Praetor:
?
Click to expand...
The IFV more generally referred to the original resolution but did not directly mention its contents. You are correct in pointing out this issue as it would have most likely been helpful to provide exactly how the original resolution acted that way. In the future I'll do my best to make sure we are more specific when making such a claim.

Secondly, the original resolution is important due to the state of the WA at the time. It provided a historic background to the actions made by TBH while also being not too long after they were committed. It was also considered that an updated proposal would most likely not be any more detailed or otherwise drafted better than this original SC proposal. It should be noted that we held a similar stance during the latest Condemn Macedon vote some many months ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top