[SC - DEFEATED] Repeal Condemn The Black Hawks

Status
Not open for further replies.
Caius

Caius

The Minister
-
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
United States of Dictators
Discord
cayus.code
ga.jpg

Repeal: ''Condemn The Black Hawks''
Category: Repeal | SC#52
Proposed by: Honeydewistania | Onsite Topic
Replacement: None​

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

The World Assembly,

Noting The Black Hawks' long and notorious history of flagrant violations of the national sovereignty of regions, which has been addressed in Security Council Resolution #217 "Condemn The Black Hawks",

Asserting that Security Council Resolution #52, also named "Condemn The Black Hawks", is a poorly written resolution that makes hardly any case for condemnation — let alone two — of The Black Hawks, and should be repealed in order to maintain the high standards of this distinguished body,

Dumbfounded by the extreme vagueness on display in SC#52, which undermines the resolution's effectiveness in presenting The Black Hawks as a threat to society by failing to include any region raided or targeted by The Black Hawks or any significant operation undertaken therein, a distinction that was even made by Security Council Resolution #1 "Condemn Macedon", a resolution that has since been repealed for its subpar writing,

Believing that attention-seeking practices such as drafting a "self-commendation" are not noteworthy enough to warrant condemnation from the Security Council and should be ignored,

Observing that SC#52 cites "hundreds of regions" having been raided by The Black Hawks, when in reality they were likely the mostly harmless and easily reversible "tag raids" which only affect the outward appearance of a region and its embassies, and do not usually involve "regional bans to permanently exert their control",

Recognising that since all resolutions, regardless of whether they have been repealed, are stored in an accessible database for all to peruse, SC#52’s standing as a supposedly "historically significant" resolution would not be notably diminished or forgotten as a result of its repeal,

Further recognising that no "history" of The Black Hawks’ heinous raiding activities from before 2011 would be erased as a result of a repeal, as the complete lack of details of such activities renders SC#52 completely useless in garnering any significant knowledge of The Black Hawks’ raiding from that time period,

Understanding that a new type of resolution in the Security Council, the "declaration", has been established for the Security Council to express its opinions on certain matters, and believing that a declaration would be better to ‘condemn raiding’ than a poorly written condemnation from over a decade ago,

Further believing that whilst some claim that The Black Hawks are deserving of two condemnations due to the scope of their dastardly deeds, SC#52 does a very poor job in capturing the notoriety of The Black Hawks, and that if The Black Hawks are indeed found to be worthy of two Security Council condemnations they should be recognised with a resolution that adequately details the heinous activities that they have engaged in throughout the years,

Concluding that SC#52, which utterly fails in presenting The Black Hawks as a region deserving of condemnation, should therefore be repealed, hereby:

Repeals Security Council Resolution #52, "Condemn The Black Hawks".
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
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!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
10972

“Repeal: ‘Condemn the Black Hawks’” was defeated 4,983 votes (33.1%) to 10,045 (66.9%).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IFV
Overview
This proposal seeks to repeal the first Commend of the Black Hawks [SC#52] for a variety of reasons. Specifically, the author cites the "self-condemnation" nature of their target, the vague references to what should be very concrete and measurable efforts (numbers of hits), and the fact that this resolution's repeal would not "erase history", thus refuting a prominent point against the resolution.

Recommendation
While we may understand the point and the argument of this, we cannot support it. The main reason for this is not some paean to the repeal--replace standards of the Security Council or some high-minded notion about historical preservation of Security Council Resolutions. Instead, our lack of support comes from a place of recognizing history itself. We cannot support a Resolution that chips away at our understanding of history until a resolution bettering that understanding is on offer.

On the other hand, we agree that large portions of the target's writing are unsatisfactory, sloppy, and unnecessarily vague. We, being at least in some measure as Security Council critics historians, would prefer not to have the history we remember be so tied up in popular memory and in that way, a repeal of this Resolution would not just be preferable, it would be advisable to service better, more detailed historical memory. This all leads to a quandary with only one satisfactory answer.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly issues No Recommendation on the Security Council Resolution at vote, "Repeal: 'Condemn the Black Hawks'" and instead encourages our residents to keep our points in mind when choosing a stance for themselves.
Our Voting Recommendation Dispatch--Please Upvote!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Against, we deserve to have a region with two condemnations and it is important to preserve history.
 
Last edited:
Rewan Demontay:
Against, we deserve to have a region with two condemnations and it is important to preserve history.
Click to expand...
For the reader at home who wants the context, there have been 5 entities who have had two SC badges simultaneously (2 regions/3 players):

The regions:
The Black Hawks (SC#52 & SC#217)--2x Condemned
The Black Riders (SC#91 & SC#127)--2x Condemned, both now repealed (partially) due to their role in Predator.

The players:
Sedgistan (SC#18 & SC#54)--SC#18 commended him, SC#54 condemned him. SC#18 would be repealed by SC#58, shortly after the passage of SC#54.
Imperium Anglorum (SC#223 & SC#363)--2x Commended
Durkadurkaranistan II (SC#33 & SC#283)--2x Condemned

Needless to say, there is precedent for repealing a badge (or badges) held simultaneously.
 
Rewan Demontay:
we deserve to have a region with two condemnations
Click to expand...

What do you mean by this? Why do we ‘deserve’ to have a region with two condemnations?

Also, two condemnations/commendations should both be of decent quality. For example, both the commendations of Imperium Anglorum are well written. There’s no point condemning someone with a subpar resolution even if they deserve it.

Rewan Demontay:
it is important to preserve history
Click to expand...

SC#52 and its forum thread and whatever can be still be viewed. Just slightly less easily. And anyways there’s hardly any history even stated in SC#52 that is worth preserving
 
Last edited:
For

The proposal raises valid points regarding the condemnation, though has some questionable points. I do not see how going through with this proposal could affect history, as it remains archived in the past resolutions.
 
Last edited:
While amendable to arguments of quality, I'm not inclined to vote for given that no replacement currently exists (nor does a general declaration against raiding, as also suggested). Indeed, the raising of Macedon is relevant - but to note that that one had a replacement passed and then the original was repealed. As I've recently found a source of TBH raid history existing independently of COE/RB's memories, I do intend to write a replacement in that manner for early TBH (hopefully fast-tracking it from among my various writing projects).

In any case, Against
 
For

Not to be rude, but Rewan’s points are invalid. There is nothing good of a region with two condemnations, and history is already preserved in the NS forums.

Furthermore, when looking into SC#52, it is in fact poorly written and there are no hyperlinks provided as a note in the resolution to support the factuality of the statements that the author makes. Such resolutions (e.g.: Comfortable Pillows for All Protocol) could possibly damage the reputation of the WA, so SC#52 should be repealed.
 
Against.

Hulldom:
For the reader at home who wants the context, there have been 5 entities who have had two SC badges simultaneously (2 regions/3 players):

The regions:
The Black Hawks (SC#52 & SC#217)--2x Condemned
The Black Riders (SC#91 & SC#127)--2x Condemned, both now repealed (partially) due to their role in Predator.

The players:
Sedgistan (SC#18 & SC#54)--SC#18 commended him, SC#54 condemned him. SC#18 would be repealed by SC#58, shortly after the passage of SC#54.
Imperium Anglorum (SC#223 & SC#363)--2x Commended
Durkadurkaranistan II (SC#33 & SC#283)--2x Condemned

Needless to say, there is precedent for repealing a badge (or badges) held simultaneously.
Click to expand...
"there is precedent for repealing a badge (or badges) held simultaneously." No there's not. Sedge's commendation was repealed because of the Devonitians coup; his condemnation was repealed because it was a badgehunt, an alleged backroom-deal, and a joke by Crazy Girl. TBR's first condemnation repeal was politics by Cormac— you can look at the thread to see. The second was repealed due to Predator.

As for Macedon, Kuriko employed a sneaky tactic of passing a replacement prior to repealing, which seems to work because, ya know, politics. AMOM did the same thing a decade ago with Nazi Europe.

Anne of Cleves:
For

Not to be rude, but Rewan’s points are invalid. There is nothing good of a region with two condemnations, and history is already preserved in the NS forums.

Furthermore, when looking into SC#52, it is in fact poorly written and there are no hyperlinks provided as a note in the resolution to support the factuality of the statements that the author makes. Such resolutions (e.g.: Comfortable Pillows for All Protocol) could possibly damage the reputation of the WA, so SC#52 should be repealed.
Click to expand...

Since when do condemnations contain hyperlinks to their sources? I don't think I understand what you're saying.
 
I just can’t support this. I’m not sure it was ready yet and could have used some more refining, it definitely got submitted too quickly based on the trajectory of the thread, and it’s underestimating the extent to which a lot of people place value in the target. The context in which this was submitted is also important. Certainly didn’t do any favors for the potential success of this resolution.

Abstain
 
Bormiar:
Against.


"there is precedent for repealing a badge (or badges) held simultaneously." No there's not. Sedge's commendation was repealed because of the Devonitians coup; his condemnation was repealed because it was a badgehunt, an alleged backroom-deal, and a joke by Crazy Girl. TBR's first condemnation repeal was politics by Cormac— you can look at the thread to see. The second was repealed due to Predator.

As for Macedon, Kuriko employed a sneaky tactic of passing a replacement prior to repealing, which seems to work because, ya know, politics. AMOM did the same thing a decade ago with Nazi Europe.



Since when do condemnations contain hyperlinks to their sources? I don't think I understand what you're saying.
Click to expand...
What I was trying to say is that I don’t see too much evidence to support the statements made in SC#52
 
Anne of Cleves:
What I was trying to say is that I don’t see too much evidence to support the statements made in SC#52
Click to expand...
No one can deny that. Unfortunately if you look back to that time period, you had a few impressive authors — Sedge, AMOM, and Unibot — and lots of other authors who quality didn’t seemed to be demanded of.

However, TBH seems to think that this resolution is historical, which is something we should at least consider (I don’t agree). Additionally, I really don’t want to be left repealing 50-100 poorly written resolutions because they don’t fit today’s standards, and then doing something like that again in five years. Lastly, TBH deserves two condemnations (no one seems to be seriously arguing that), but if this is repealed without a ready replacement, they may lose it forever. The vagueness in the first condemn left room for the second condemn to talk about a lot. Very little may be left for a third condemnation if we choose to repeal the first. I’d need to get the opinion of a TBH member to see if there’s enough to fill a third, but I’d currently guess there’s not, and that we’re therefore stuck with the first res for at least the next few years.
 
I think if replacing SC#52 can't happen because there's not enough content to fill it (doubtful), the TBH probably don't deserve two of them. Lol. Also I believe that SC#217 only specifically cites operations from 2011 onward, making it pretty easy to make a historical condemnation of TBH without duplicating too much should SC#52 be repealed
 
Honeydewistan:
I think if replacing SC#52 can't happen because there's not enough content to fill it (doubtful), the TBH probably don't deserve two of them. Lol. Also I believe that SC#217 only specifically cites operations from 2011 onward, making it pretty easy to make a historical condemnation of TBH without duplicating too much should SC#52 be repealed
Click to expand...
Good! There’s plenty pre-2011 and post-2017. Someone should get on that, and then repeal will make more sense.
 
Present. And I don't know how to vote given that we haven't got a recommendation on the IFV, and I wasn't around for much of the history mentioned. I am totally clueless on this resolution.
 
Last edited:
This proposal has received the requisite approvals to enter the formal queue. Barring it being withdrawn or marked illegal, it will proceed to a vote at Minor Update on Friday.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top