[Submitted] Repeal "Condemn The Black Riders"

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » 03 Jul 2014, 20:42

Repeal "Condemn The Black Riders"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal | Resolution: SC#91 | Proposed by: Cormac A Stark
Description: WA Security Council Resolution #91: Condemn The Black Riders shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The Security Council:

Recognizing that SC#91: Condemn The Black Riders does not meet the standard of high quality that the Security Council has come to expect from such resolutions;

Noting that The Black Riders cravenly target all regions that are least capable of defending themselves and provide easy though fleeting victories which require little military skill, and not just those that "contradict or challenge their ideology or power," contrary to the claims of SC#91;

Observing that The Black Riders are completely powerless to destroy a regional community even despite the destruction of regional territory and recorded history, negating the fear of "cultural genocide" cited by SC#91;

Repudiating the assertion by SC#91 that the regions and nations of the world should be "fearful" of The Black Riders, instead challenging regions and nations to pursue the restoration of interregional peace and goodwill when such is threatened by The Black Riders;

Recalling that The Black Riders have been more comprehensively condemned by a subsequent resolution, SC#127: Condemn The Black Riders;

Determining that permitting two condemnations of The Black Riders to remain in force grants The Black Riders greater recognition before the Security Council than they deserve and creates an unwarranted climate of fear, which may be interpreted by The Black Riders as a perverse reward for their destructive behavior:

Hereby Repeals SC#91: Condemn The Black Riders.

First Draft

The Rejected Realms has a number of WA authors as citizens, including your Delegate, so I wanted to post this draft here for feedback.

Post by **Wopruthien** » 03 Jul 2014, 21:40

Against.

Post by **frattastan** » 03 Jul 2014, 21:48

I'm in favour.

SC#91 is awfully written, and there's an appropriate replacement already in force. Even if I think I was against that one as well.

Post by **Guy** » 03 Jul 2014, 22:34

I think the other condemnation is comprehensive enough, and subsumes this one. So I'm in favour.

Observing that the reference by SC#91 to "Operation Marathon," in which The Black Riders invaded 26 regions in one day, is now outdated and that The Black Riders have invaded many more regions in a day's time;

Unnecessary. A subsequent, 'larger' wrong does not make a prior wrong any less, well, wrong.

Repudiating the accusation of "cultural genocide" made against The Black Riders by SC#91, and noting that it is not possible for The Black Riders to destroy a regional community or its culture, only the regional territory that it calls home;

I agree that "cultural genocide" is terribly worded, but I'm not sure about the assertion that it's impossible for repetitive tag raids to cause the decay of a community.

Post by **frattastan** » 03 Jul 2014, 22:39

A subsequent, 'larger' wrong does not make a prior wrong any less, well, wrong.

Yeah, it sounds a bit weird. Probably it's just meant to say that the other Condemnation is factually inaccurate, not that TBR isn't condemnable.

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » 03 Jul 2014, 22:52

In regard to Operation Marathon, I was more trying to convey what Fratt said. It's been noted elsewhere that their later, more numerous tag runs don't negate the earlier one and isn't really substantive grounds for repeal, so I'm considering removing that clause from the second draft.

Regarding the "cultural genocide" clause and how I've addressed it, I'll re-post my response to similar concerns elsewhere:

The point I was trying to make here is that while a hostile re-found can lead to destruction of a community's culture, that is in the power of that actual community rather than in the raiders' power. A community can decide to fold after a hostile re-found or it can decide to rebuild in a new region. It can decide to mourn its lost history and never move on, or it can decide to make new history and remember as much as it can of its previous history.

I don't want to attribute the power to destroy a community to The Black Riders. A community's fate in this game is entirely within its own hands, even after a hostile re-found. There have been communities that have recovered from far worse, including those who have lost tens of thousands of posts worth of history to forum destruction.

That was the point I was trying to make, anyway. If anyone has suggestions for better wording that would better convey that point, I'm all ears.

Thanks for the feedback!

Christian Democrats · Post by **Christian Democrats** » 04 Jul 2014, 02:07

Support. TBR doesn't need to be condemned twice.

Determining that permitting two condemnations of The Black Riders to remain in force grants The Black Riders greater recognition before the Security Council than they deserve, which may serve as a reward for their destructive behavior

You should reword this clause.

Out-of-character: condemnations are often considered rewards.
In-character: using the "reward" language doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » 04 Jul 2014, 09:41

In-character isn't quite as important in the SC as in the GA, and I'm fairly sure it complies with Rule 4. I may look at re-wording it to try to better convey it in-character, but the clause is fairly vital as I think that's the argument that is likely to make this repeal pass where others have failed.

Post by **Ryno** » 04 Jul 2014, 10:37

Good I've wanted this one to get repealed.

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » 06 Jul 2014, 06:22

Second draft is up. I believe I've managed to incorporate several of the suggestions offered here.

I'll be leaving this up for a day or two before submitting.

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » 07 Jul 2014, 04:52

This has been submitted here. Thanks for the feedback!

Christian Democrats · Post by **Christian Democrats** » 07 Jul 2014, 22:49

I approved.

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » 08 Jul 2014, 01:50

Thanks CD, much appreciated.

Post by **frattastan** » 10 Jul 2014, 18:56

Fyi, in light of the Ixnay raid I doubt this will gather enough votes to pass, no matter how good the arguments are.

Jack Dawkins · Post by **Jack Dawkins** » 10 Jul 2014, 22:40

Aye...I already stated my reasons on the Osiris forums.

Kenny · Post by **Kenny** » 11 Jul 2014, 01:29

Christian Democrats wrote:
04 Jul 2014, 00:07
Support. TBR doesn't need to be condemned twice.

Determining that permitting two condemnations of The Black Riders to remain in force grants The Black Riders greater recognition before the Security Council than they deserve, which may serve as a reward for their destructive behavior
You should reword this clause.

Out-of-character: condemnations are often considered rewards.
In-character: using the "reward" language doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

This doesn't seem to be an in-character proposal (though it is R4-compliant), so it's not like it matters, but it makes perfect sense to me. If Kennyites (IC) can wear a WA condemnation as a badge of pride then so can raiders.

I was not even aware that TBR had been condemned twice. Both resolutions should be repealed if you ask me, but at least this is a start.

Post by **Campinia** » 11 Jul 2014, 10:11

The second one was apparently written as a replacement for the first anyway.

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » 11 Jul 2014, 19:01

Aye, it was a replacement for the first.

Fratt, I hope that isn't the case. Nothing about The Black Riders' raid of Ixnay changes anything in regard to SC#91, its repeal, or the fact that TBR does not deserve two condemnations and considers them a reward. Their butthurt in the SC forum repeal thread should be enough to demonstrate that repealing this would punish them more than keeping it on the books.