The Security Council,
Believing that NAZI EUROPE should become open to invasion
Hereby liberates NAZI EUROPE.
Co-Authored by Tim-Opolis.
This is the result of a long drafting process and a ton of hard work. I'm glad to have your support. Thank you.
by The Dourian Embassy » Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:41 pm
The Security Council,
Believing that NAZI EUROPE should become open to invasion
Hereby liberates NAZI EUROPE.
Co-Authored by Tim-Opolis.
by Cylarn » Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:44 pm
The Dourian Embassy wrote:The Security Council,
Believing that NAZI EUROPE should become open to invasion
Hereby liberates NAZI EUROPE.
Co-Authored by Tim-Opolis.
This is the result of a long drafting process and a ton of hard work. I'm glad to have your support. Thank you.
by Grenetar » Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:45 pm
by Grenetar » Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:45 pm
by Captain Woodhouse » Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:43 pm
by Newtered States » Thu Nov 15, 2012 8:23 pm
The Dourian Embassy wrote:The Security Council,
Believing that NAZI EUROPE should become open to invasion
Hereby liberates NAZI EUROPE.
Co-Authored by Tim-Opolis.
This is the result of a long drafting process and a ton of hard work. I'm glad to have your support. Thank you.
by The National Front Disco » Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:29 pm
by The Dourian Embassy » Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:16 am
Sedgistan wrote:What contributions did Tim-Opolis make to the writing of this proposal?
by Benomia » Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:15 am
The Archangel Conglomerate wrote:You've obviously never seen the Benomian M16A3s.
Carathon wrote:*Logs in with the name of Troll Alliance and writes a short app with poor grammar and logic.*Somehow genuinely surprised when denied*
Ragnarum wrote:Ragnarum transforms into a giant godzilla like creature, then walks into the sunset while emotional music plays and Morgan Freeman narrates.
Kouralia wrote:Everyone hates us: we're MMW. We're like the poster children of Realismfggtry.
Sauritican wrote:We've all been spending too much time with Ben
by Sedgistan » Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:13 am
by United Federation of Canada » Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:14 am
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:33 am
by The Great Destruction » Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:43 am
Sedgistan wrote:
<snip>..., but if you (and certain others) continue to submit idiotic, and virtually content-less proposals, there will be modly intervention - namely deletion of the proposals, and warnings for spamming the queue.
Just bear that in mind.
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:There are "co-authorship violations" now? Can you cite chapter and verse where the SC even decided to impose any limits on co-authorship, let alone a minimum requisite level of contribution?
Co-authors:
Multiple co-authors are allowed in the Security Council. Co-authors must be nations, not regions/organisations:
Ardchoille wrote:An authorship credit is for doing almost as much work on the proposal as the author -- a complete re-write, for example. It's not for collective critiquing, whether done by a forum or by region members.
There is no limit on co-authors, but a "reality-imposed limit" of 3 has been suggested. Nations which no longer exist can be cited, so long as they actually contributed to the authoring of the resolution. However, citing nations which are dead and clearly didn't contribute to the proposal may get your proposal deleted - as in this case (more on it here). Only those who contributed to the text of the proposal should be listed, so campaigners, lobbyists etc. should not be named - see here. Note that the text should make crystal clear that the listed nations are co-authors, or it may be considered a list of supporters, as per this ruling.
by Sedgistan » Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:55 am
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:There are "co-authorship violations" now? Can you cite chapter and verse where the SC even decided to impose any limits on co-authorship, let alone a minimum requisite level of contribution?
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:32 pm
by Dagguerro » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:46 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:OK. Who are the "certain others" who will be cited for rules violations for submitting dumb proposals? Because Douria's the only one I know of lately who's arguably done so.
by The Dourian Embassy » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:49 pm
Dagguerro wrote:I would guess that's a reference to Newtered States and the Commend Sedgistan proposal currently at quorum which consists of precisely two sentences of text, one of which is the operative clause.
by Frattastan » Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:00 pm
Drop Your Pants wrote:I think raiders are cute, the way they think they're big and scary people who threaten others :)
by Mahaj » Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:05 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:OK. Who are the "certain others" who will be cited for rules violations for submitting dumb proposals? Because Douria's the only one I know of lately who's arguably done so.
<Koth> I'm still going by the assumption that Mahaj is Unibot's kid brother or something
Kandarin(Naivetry): You're going to have a great NS career ahead of you if you want it, Mahaj. :)
<@Eluvatar> Why is SkyDip such a purist raiderist
<+frattastan> Because his region was never raided.
<+maxbarry> EarthAway: I guess I might dabble in raiding just to experience it better, but I would not like to raid regions of natives, so I'd probably be more interested in defense and liberations
by Tim-Opolis » Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:25 pm
<Koth - 06/30/2020> I mean as far as GPers go, Tim is one of the most iconic
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement