| Prohibited Group Status for The Black Hawks |
I won't comment in detail, since there's always the chance the CSS could review this, but I do think this matter has some complexity, and simply arguing that the Milograd Coup happened four years ago (which is a fair point, since there are reasonable limits to when an event is too old) means ignoring more recent events that may provide more context as to the evolving attitudes of TBH towards GCR sovereignty.
Obviously the question remains of how well they fit the legal definition of "hostile group", and that is something either the Cabinet or the CSS will have to address, should they choose to do it. Also, I have no problem with people swearing in their posts. Policing post content to that degree is a bad idea. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System Quote:<snip stuff from a few years back>If it was such a big deal that the Black Hawks did something in 2011-13, why are you just now pointing this out? All I see here is you adding anything you can possibly think of to your list just to convince the legislators that TBH is truly terrible. I was not in TBH at that time, but the majority of that leadership then is either disappeared or retired. Quote:As the Cabinet's recent statement announced, less than two weeks ago The Black Hawks staged an update operation to unseat Kowassati, Delegate of our ally Lazarus, by pushing a Guardian -- Loftegen -- into the Delegacy. The Black Hawks proceeded to encourage Loftegen to perpetrate an actual coup via Lazarus' RMB, while falsely accusing him of requesting their support for a coup in the midst of a Vice Delegate election in which he was a candidate. This constituted not only violation of Lazarus' sovereignty by unseating their Delegate, but also attempted incitement of an actual coup and attempted interference in and manipulation of their Vice Delegate election.Nobody encouraged Loftegen to do jack sh--, Cormac. The closest to such a thing happening was Mallorea and Riva, retired Black Hawk, insisting that Loftegen coup on the Lazarus RMB. Mall does not have access to TBH's operational chats, as he is long since retired. Quote:The lead in The Black Hawks' current invasion of the region Illuminati has 119 endorsements at the time of this post. A build-up of so many pilers usually indicates one thing: Plans to invade our ally, the Rejected Realms, by ejecting the pilers and moving to the Rejected Realms right before it updates. The Black Hawks deny that they plan to invade the Rejected Realms, but they're obviously not going to admit to it, as any admission of such plans would prompt allies and defenders to start piling to support the Rejected Realms immediately.We will all have a good laugh when this does not happen. Once again, you're finding anything that you possibly can to add to your fancy list. TBH has said it multiple times -- WHY would they want to "invade" TRR when they will only be able to hold it for an update, maybe two if they get lucky. Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe they're piling like crazy so they can lock down the region? Instead of thinking deliriously, think rationally. Thank you.
Just going to point out that when The Black Hawks were even briefly mentioned in a negative context on our Discord server, Souls and Sygian swooped in to have an incredibly heated argument with Roavin about their pretty awful conduct toward him and Imki in the recent past.
And now we have Sygian defending The Black Hawks in the private halls of the Assembly by dismissing their violations of Feeder and Sinker sovereignty as irrelevant. He's showing no remorse and he doesn't think his conduct as a Black Hawk, or the conduct of his comrades, is a problem. I'm not sure how we can say, with a straight face, that The Black Hawks aren't a threat to stack the Assembly and subvert the South Pacific. They meet the criteria of Article 4, they've done things since meeting the criteria to demonstrate they haven't changed one bit, and they are a threat to the South Pacific. Not seeing a problem with the designation. That said, Glen's point that maybe we need legislation to address attacks on allies isn't a bad point. As long as that legislation would afford us similar protection, that should be fine. But I continue to maintain that there is no reason we shouldn't prohibit The Black Hawks under Article 4. Regardless, whatever we do, we shouldn't do nothing and just wait for The Black Hawks -- who are clearly hostile to the South Pacific and will remain hostile to the South Pacific -- to become an even more pressing and more difficult threat to address. We know who they are, we know what they stand for, we know how they regard Feeder and Sinker sovereignty. Let's do something about it. Quote:Just going to point out that when The Black Hawks were even briefly mentioned in a negative context on our Discord server, Souls and Sygian swooped in to have an incredibly heated argument with Roavin about their pretty awful conduct toward him and Imki in the recent past.Defending Souls after he was called an "asshole and a half" along with other attacks on his character is not nearly the same as defending The Black Hawks. For one that made a "retirement" post criticizing the "toxic community" of gameplay, you sure are embracing Roavin's acts of poor conduct and turning it around on the victims. Charismatic Stallion - Today at 2:29 PM You know what - I did you wrong there. I'm legitimately sorry. :/ Here we have Roavin apologizing to Souls for accusing him of poor conduct. Looks like you're the only one still arguing this, Cormac, you might want to get caught up. Quote:And now we have Sygian defending The Black Hawks in the private halls of the Assembly by dismissing their violations of Feeder and Sinker sovereignty as irrelevant. He's showing no remorse and he doesn't think his conduct as a Black Hawk, or the conduct of his comrades, is a problem.CTRL+F'd "irrelevant" in my previous post.. couldn't find it. As you should already know, no law was broken by the participants of the so called "invasion" and neither myself nor Tom (both members of TBH and citizens of Lazarus) are facing any legal punishment 1. because there was no laws broken, and 2. because nobody gives a shit about this whole debacle except you. Do I regret it? No. I'm not going to lie. It was funny to watch everyone run about in confusion. The only thing that I even came close to "dismissing" was that if you put a prohibited group status on TBH for things they did in 2011-13, you should have done it then, and not waited to do it now that they are under a whole new leadership. Quote:I'm not sure how we can say, with a straight face, that The Black Hawks aren't a threat to stack the Assembly and subvert the South Pacific. They meet the criteria of Article 4, they've done things since meeting the criteria to demonstrate they haven't changed one bit, and they are a threat to the South Pacific. Not seeing a problem with the designation.If by "The Black Hawks", you mean me, then please explain how I have tried to undermine or subvert the South Pacific. If you want me to leave, you can just ask, Cormac. Just like jumped the gun in Osiris when you got rid of Tim, you're doing the same thing here. (02-28-2017, 11:44 PM)Sygian Wrote: Defending Souls after he was called an "asshole and a half" along with other attacks on his character is not nearly the same as defending The Black Hawks. For one that made a "retirement" post criticizing the "toxic community" of gameplay, you sure are embracing Roavin's acts of poor conduct and turning it around on the victims. Unless I'm reading it wrong, I don't think Roavin is saying Souls didn't engage in poor conduct -- he did, and that was clear -- but rather that Roavin went too far in calling him an "asshole and a half." Fair enough, that does seem too far. It doesn't change that Souls' prior conduct was inappropriate, and that it was equally inappropriate for the two of you to swoop in and start a heated argument, and then continually escalate it, in defense of Souls' actions. And there is no divorcing Souls' actions from The Black Hawks. He is Field Marshal of The Black Hawks and was acting in that capacity when he was urging Imki to remove Roavin from the SPSF, like it was at all appropriate for him to try to tell the South Pacific who should be included in its military. (02-28-2017, 11:44 PM)Sygian Wrote: CTRL+F'd "irrelevant" in my previous post.. couldn't find it. As you should already know, no law was broken by the participants of the so called "invasion" and neither myself nor Tom (both members of TBH and citizens of Lazarus) are facing any legal punishment 1. because there was no laws broken, and 2. because nobody gives a shit about this whole debacle except you. Do I regret it? No. I'm not going to lie. It was funny to watch everyone run about in confusion. The idea that you're under "whole new leadership" is absurd. Are you claiming Jakker is no longer part of your leadership? He remains on the Council of the Hawks as your Foreign Affairs Director, and he was until recently Council President. Regardless, there is no difference at all between then and now in terms of Feeder and Sinker sovereignty. That was clear two weeks ago when The Black Hawks decided to violate the sovereignty of Lazarus. "Do I regret it? No. I'm not going to lie. It was funny to watch everyone run about in confusion." I'm just highlighting this again because I think it bears repetition. Do we want people who think violating Feeder and Sinker sovereignty is funny and don't regret it at all involved in the Assembly? The Black Hawks are as much a threat to the sovereignty of the South Pacific as any other Feeder or Sinker, provided they'll find violating the South Pacific's sovereignty funny. (02-28-2017, 11:44 PM)Sygian Wrote: If by "The Black Hawks", you mean me, then please explain how I have tried to undermine or subvert the South Pacific. If you want me to leave, you can just ask, Cormac. Just like jumped the gun in Osiris when you got rid of Tim, you're doing the same thing here. This isn't about you specifically, it's about The Black Hawks. No reason to personalize it. There's no question that The Black Hawks are a threat to the sovereignty of the South Pacific. The entire history of your organization in regard to Feeder and Sinker sovereignty makes that clear. I have no interest in debating Osiris with you in the South Pacific, but since you brought it up, I will point out that you once left Osiris because you couldn't stand Tim, you had no interest in Osiris until the Grey Wardens were proscribed and Tim was banned, and you have continually been an advocate in favor of keeping them proscribed for the threat you believe they pose to Osiris' sovereignty. Moreover, you used that proscribed organization law to label Solidarity -- perhaps the most harmless defender organization ever to exist -- a threat to Osiris' sovereignty, based on trumped up OOC charges of doxxing you that have now been proven false, and yet you have done nothing to see them removed from proscribed status. So I don't think trying to tar and feather me with a proscribed status law you've embraced with gusto is at all appropriate. In general, it isn't appropriate for you to be bringing Osiris up here at all, because it has no relevance to this discussion. Quote:<Osiris stuff>In no way was I saying what you did was wrong. All I said is you jumped the gun on it, just like you are now. I am in favor of the amendment in Osiris and frankly I think every region should have some sort of "prohibited groups" list in order to protect their regional sovereignty. As for the question of Solidarity, not sure what was proven false, because I clearly have logs and screenshots of one of their commanders mentioning that they had tried to use my NationStates YouTube account on a search to find my RL identity, which he claims to have found my Facebook. Was that doxxing? No. At the time I said it was because of some tips that those talks had been in the #liberations discord channel, which I had Tim search. I recall him finding a discussion that they were talking about my YouTube account and things of the likes, but none of my personal information was exposed. So yeah, doxxing? No. Was it unethical and disgusting? Yes. But yeah like you said, it's not the topic. Aaaand on we go! Quote:This isn't about you specifically, it's about The Black Hawks. No reason to personalize it. There's no question that The Black Hawks are a threat to the sovereignty of the South Pacific. The entire history of your organization in regard to Feeder and Sinker sovereignty makes that clear.Clearly, it is, since you and I both know that there is no other hawk that comes to mind that cares about joining and contributing to TSP. The only points that still stand in your OP are things that took place 4+ years ago.
I'm not continuing the Osiris tangent with you here. As I said, it isn't appropriate, and it isn't relevant.
All of the points from the OP still stand, not just "things that took place 4+ years ago." The Black Hawks' support for Milograd's coup satisfies the criteria of Article 4, but The Black Hawks have a long history of violating Feeder and Sinker sovereignty with impunity. That history was demonstrated again as recently as two weeks ago. You may regard that as unimportant and funny, but the South Pacific doesn't, as was clear from the Cabinet's statement on the matter. That you completely disregarded the Cabinet's statement and continue to take pride and find amusement in your actions against our ally speaks volumes about the propriety of you, or any Black Hawk, being involved in this Assembly.
Okay, now hold up, do *not* use me as part of your excuse for this, it’s not something I support at all and I’ll go into why in a moment but first - I am not some damsel in distress that needs her battles fought for her, particularly on this subject. As I said on Discord after things got heated regarding the incident, which for those that weren't there stemmed from a debate about alignment v independence; "... while I was annoyed at Souls at the time I got where he was coming from with his paranoia. I was new and unproven, I don't blame him for questions. I probably would have done the same, hell I was paranoid as f**k the whole time myself anyway but I still don't regret trying to run an indie military and would do it all again if I felt I was needed. Also for the record, I was given a lot of grief by a lot of people but the only time it really p****d me off was when a defender military leader tried to guilt trip and blackmail me into joining their op.."
I don't think Souls was unreasonable, he gave me a bit of a hard time sure, but then so did plenty of other people, you being one of them Cormac. I seem to remember you had issues with the same incident, not to mention the casual remarks in our GP embassy. OpSec was tough at the time as it was and that coupled with my noob unaligned status adding to the matter. It was discussed and sorted in private. I hold no hard feelings against him and don't believe he does against me either. I have chatted with and done graphics for him since. Yes getting grief was annoying but I was getting it from all angles and it was something I knew I was going to have to deal with from the start I was prepared to take it to let the members of our military could get on with having fun. Basically yeah, it was annoying but no more so than any of the junk thrown at me by you and others and if push comes to shove I can give as good as I get. Back on to the actual topic, just why are we getting up in arms about something that the region it actually affected haven’t even acted on? We did our duty, we defended our ally, why do we need to now class the whole of TBH as PNG’s for it on top of this? To prove what a loyal ally we are? I think it’s a complete overreaction, they’ve seen how quickly the SPSF reacted when it seemed like they were in trouble, they know we have their back. They haven’t kicked the members of TBH from their region so why should we? Pulling up events that happened years ago to help justify this seems equally ridiculous. From my understanding Mall isn’t even a member of TBH anymore, why should we punish them now, years later when most of them weren’t even around at this time for the actions of someone that isn’t even a member of their organisation anymore? Raiders having a laugh at the expense of something getting raided isn’t exactly a shocker either, involved or not that’s always been pretty standard procedure just as defenders will brag about a successful liberation. ![[Image: Uy6Tvaj.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/Uy6Tvaj.gif)
Quote:hierocles - Today at 5:38 PM This is a troubling answer. (03-01-2017, 06:41 PM)sandaoguo Wrote:Quote:hierocles - Today at 5:38 PM Cool? Haha thank you for enlightening everyone with what is already common knowledge. In other news, the sky is blue. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |