16,999 vs. 1: The DCM

[SunRawr]

It is hilarious that so many people are taking this seriously.

[Jagalonia]

It is hilarious that so many people are taking this seriously.

There's really no reason to.

Even IF he could get 300 people, even IF he could keep them all organized, active, and interested in his "Cause".

He still can't do anything. He might raid a region and take it over, maybe a few, but he won't be able to do anything resolution-wise.

[SunRawr]

It is hilarious that so many people are taking this seriously.

There's really no reason to.

Even IF he could get 300 people, even IF he could keep them all organized, active, and interested in his "Cause".

He still can't do anything. He might raid a region and take it over, maybe a few, but he won't be able to do anything resolution-wise.

Bingo.

[Jagalonia]

This is not my first nation in nationstates. I probably have 100 posts in total.

And a lot of people agree with me that the WA is very tyrannical.

A whole 100 posts....
I'm so proud. :')

The amount of times you clicked the "Submit" button, is entirely irrelivant.

[Equestrian States]

Today I procaliam my undying determination to see the WA stopped in its tyrannicaI function

Good for you.

I only need 300 active followers to completely halt the WA in passing any more legislation.

This isn't 300, you know. Having 300 obsessive and insane followers does not make you a force of nature. Now, if you had 1,000 followers, all in one region, all members of the WA, all endorsing one nation, then you could make an impact such as the one you described. Of course, you'd still have some difficulty blocking those resolutions that pass by 6,000 votes.

Laugh if you want to.

Okay.

In fact, tell me I'm wrong.

You're wrong.

I want every bit of opposition you can throw at me so I can improve my strategy and win.

Oh no guys! He might get 1,000 followers to follow his idiotic crusade! Tell me when he gets to 50 full followers...

Within the WA's own rules.

I'd like to see that. A shame you'll never succeed. Max would probably get sick of your ruining a huge part of his game after about a month. Internet forums aren't democracies when there are mods.

But be warned...  I will quote what you said about me when I hold the WA by the throat.

You'll give me a good laugh or two when I look back at this.

[David Williams]

Good Job Fighting the Good Fight man!
As there is a whole load of WA resolutions i would like gone, (yes i'm a "Wa Libertarian") I have always wanted a resolution to repeal all previous legislation, except for a few of the important ones designed to mantain human rights!
If there's a way i can get 2 endorsements i would make a resolution of this sort.

[Mushet]

I don't support the WA by any stretch of the imagination, it needs to be watched by a second group that makes sure it's not becoming tyrannical or wanting to take over the world, but without the WA, no one will be able to defend founderless regions without locking them outright, so.............

The WA owned the world when this game began. There's no such thing as the World Assembly becoming tyrannical. The laws of the World Assembly must be approved by a plurality, which is the opposite of oppression. Laws are made and repealed based off what the majority wants. If the World Assmebly becomes tyrannical, it's because the member nations wanted it.

The WA came around in 2008 I believe, before that there was the U.N, which I don't know much about

And I am hereby entertained by this thread and it's OP, not very active at all in any of this WA/Raiding and defending shit but I'm still interested in whatever convuluted plan this individual may or may not have

[The Grand World Order]

before that there was the U.N, which I don't know much about

it was exactly the same, minus a few features

IIRC in the coding it still says "UN," I know it does for the WA's URL

[Wisconsin7]

Good Job Fighting the Good Fight man!
As there is a whole load of WA resolutions i would like gone, (yes i'm a "Wa Libertarian") I have always wanted a resolution to repeal all previous legislation, except for a few of the important ones designed to mantain human rights!
If there's a way i can get 2 endorsements i would make a resolution of this sort.

Would that even be legal?

[Equestrian States]

Good Job Fighting the Good Fight man!
As there is a whole load of WA resolutions i would like gone, (yes i'm a "Wa Libertarian") I have always wanted a resolution to repeal all previous legislation, except for a few of the important ones designed to mantain human rights!
If there's a way i can get 2 endorsements i would make a resolution of this sort.

Would that even be legal?

Does it matter? It wouldn't pass.

[Wisconsin7]

Would that even be legal?

Does it matter? It wouldn't pass.

I completely agree, but I still want to know if it's legal or not. I mean, if resolution #1 could clear the slate....

[Mushet]

before that there was the U.N, which I don't know much about

it was exactly the same, minus a few features

IIRC in the coding it still says "UN," I know it does for the WA's URL

I'm pretty sure it was easier to pass resolutions in the UN, that's why there were so many resolutions, I came just when the WA was starting out

[Novastia]

You can't stop the WA from doing what its doing... no matter what you do, none of it will affect it.

[New Rogernomics]

I am writing an article on the positive impact of the World Assembly on Nationstates, hopefully it goes down well, because this whole thread is incredibly silly.

[Hjornis]

Does it matter? It wouldn't pass.

I completely agree, but I still want to know if it's legal or not. I mean, if resolution #1 could clear the slate....

It is not legal, I have tried you can oly repel on reselution at the time

[Samozaryadnyastan]

This guy has ten posts.

If I could put more than ten, I would just make a massive post entirely composed of facepalms.

This is not my first nation in nationstates. I probably have 100 posts in total.

And a lot of people agree with me that the WA is very tyrannical.

A hundred posts is still no claim to longevity or authority.

[Warzone Codger]

Plain old "Anti WA" rebellions are boring

Realvotes are where it's at. At least there you could make an legitimate argument of the fairness between "equal vote" vs "delegate stacking".

[Hjornis]

Im not to sure how I feel about the WA, I feel that nearly all that comes to a vote gets passed. To me it looks like it dont matter if its a new reselution or someone who tries to get something repelled. I have no data on this, and if anybody had I would have been greatfull. Anyway lets say that I am right. One could argue that this is simply becouse the ones deciding what comes up for vote does a good job, but I fear that its more that what is written might look good, and most people vote withoute thinking about the concequenses, thus forming a "if its at the voting stage we will lett it pass" mentality, that is harmfull to the WA. To solve this in a simple way, the resulutions should add a "whats not so great about this reselution" part to the proposal. For example if I were to write a reselution to ban a potentialy dangerus chemical that is used in prossesing food I might add "We do realise that the cost of food would rise by passing this reselution, but we think that the pros outweight the cons in this case"

[Alvenrder]

Does he realize how pointless this all is?

[Wisconsin7]

I completely agree, but I still want to know if it's legal or not. I mean, if resolution #1 could clear the slate....

It is not legal, I have tried you can oly repel on reselution at the time

Thanks, it's good to know that.

[Galiantus]

Lets see....With 300 people on your side...the most votes you can possably get is....

599. Assuming they all endorse the same delegate.

That's not enough to shoot down every resolution...

You really didn't think this through, did you?

To make a dent in the decision making, you need atleast 750ish people....

Not true....

[Soviet Canuckistan]

It is not legal, I have tried you can oly repel on reselution at the time

Thanks, it's good to know that.

You can't repeal GAR #1, as much as all of us want to do it for a laugh or not, it's impossible.

[Campinia]

Lets see....With 300 people on your side...the most votes you can possably get is....

599. Assuming they all endorse the same delegate.

That's not enough to shoot down every resolution...

You really didn't think this through, did you?

To make a dent in the decision making, you need atleast 750ish people....

Not true....

Yeah! Just keep telling yourself you have a chance to succeed! Don't let anyone put you down! You can do what everyone else has failed to do! I believe in you!

[The Corparation]

Good Job Fighting the Good Fight man!
As there is a whole load of WA resolutions i would like gone, (yes i'm a "Wa Libertarian") I have always wanted a resolution to repeal all previous legislation, except for a few of the important ones designed to mantain human rights!
If there's a way i can get 2 endorsements i would make a resolution of this sort.

Would that even be legal?

No, you can actually get booted if you try. Even if it was it wouldn't pass.

[Jagalonia]

Lets see....With 300 people on your side...the most votes you can possably get is....

599. Assuming they all endorse the same delegate.

That's not enough to shoot down every resolution...

You really didn't think this through, did you?

To make a dent in the decision making, you need atleast 750ish people....

Not true....

Really? Because I'm fairly certain I did my math right.
Unless you're planning to replace all the delegates with your little "Army" you're gathering, which will never happen....