[CANCELED] Condemn Sanders Centre

by **Tretrid** » Thu Sep 22, 2016 10:10 pm

I have decided not to expand on this draft.

by **Hansdeltania** » Thu Sep 22, 2016 10:12 pm

Tretrid wrote:
Condemn Sanders Centre
Category: Condemn|Nominee: Sanders Centre|Proposed by: Tretrid

The Security Council,
Noting the long and colorful history of The United Alliance of Conservative Nations (UACN),
Acknowledging that Sanders Centre gained power in a democratic process,
Shocked that when the UACN was shaken by a major political event, he took advantage and used puppets to distort polls to create a dictatorship,
Dismayed that Sanders Centre banned free speech in the region, effectively silencing his political opponents,
Deeply Saddened by his blatant abuse of power,
Hereby Condemns Sanders Centre.

Let me know what you think of this.

Not going to go anywhere with such a short draft.

by **Bhang Bhang Duc** » Thu Sep 22, 2016 10:25 pm

Some R4(b) violations, so it's illegal as it stands.

by **Tretrid** » Thu Sep 22, 2016 10:46 pm

Thanks for the input, but it will not be proposed anytime soon.
EDIT: Oh, I can see the R4b violation.

[snip] event, he took [snip]
[snip] by his blatant [snip]

"his" and "he" is the violation.

by **Bhang Bhang Duc** » Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:29 am

The other thing you have to consider is whether or not the larger NS community will see the nominee's actions as condemnable.

There are many nations in the game that have created dictatorships and stifled free speech, what makes the nominee more deserving of a condemnation than the others?

Well done for publishing your draft here for comment, but at the moment you're going to need a lot more reasons why Sanders Centre should be condemned.

by **Tretrid** » Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:39 pm

Again, it is very far from being proposed. I'll see what I can do.

by **We Are Not the NSA** » Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:55 pm

Tretrid wrote:Noting the long and colorful history of The United Alliance of Conservative Nations (UACN),

Oh God, I thought we were done with this.

Acknowledging that Sanders Centre gained power in a democratic process,

Shocked that when the UACN was shaken by a major political event, he took advantage and used puppets to distort polls to create a dictatorship,

I'm actually impressed that the "he" is the only part of this sentence that is not R4 compliant.

Dismayed that Sanders Centre banned free speech in the region, effectively silencing his political opponents,

The link is an R4 violation.

Deeply Saddened by his blatant abuse of power,

Hereby Condemns Sanders Centre.

Overall I don't think he is a worthy candidate for Condemnation. His actions are limited to a single region, and as we've established from Commend BT apparently domestic work just doesn't count in the SC anymore (I'm saying that ironically, but in this specific case it is actually correct).

by **Tretrid** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 7:08 pm

Seeing as how unpopular his is, I will not continue expanding this draft.

by **Telemachia** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 8:18 pm

Tretrid wrote:Seeing as how unpopular his is, I will not continue expanding this draft.

It's illegal, not unpopular. The former has been proven. The latter lacks evidence thereof, though lack of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

by **David Hameron** » Sun Sep 25, 2016 4:08 pm

The Security Council may or may not see more of Sanders Centre in the future, I'm just putting that out there.

by **Telemachia** » Sun Sep 25, 2016 9:17 pm

David Hameron wrote:The Security Council may or may not see more of Sanders Centre in the future, I'm just putting that out there.

That that means almost nothing. The sky may or may not be blue. Two and two may or may not make four. David Cameron may or may not have resigned from Parliament. Osborne's seat in Tatton may or may not exist in the 2020 election. These are all true statements given a non-exclusive OR.

by **LollerLand** » Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:19 am

Telemachia wrote:
David Hameron wrote:The Security Council may or may not see more of Sanders Centre in the future, I'm just putting that out there.

That that means almost nothing. The sky may or may not be blue. Two and two may or may not make four. David Cameron may or may not have resigned from Parliament. Osborne's seat in Tatton may or may not exist in the 2020 election. These are all true statements given a non-exclusive OR.

My girlfriend may or may not be cheating on me.

by **Crurnlark** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:53 am

Lollerland wrote:
Telemachia wrote:That that means almost nothing. The sky may or may not be blue. Two and two may or may not make four. David Cameron may or may not have resigned from Parliament. Osborne's seat in Tatton may or may not exist in the 2020 election. These are all true statements given a non-exclusive OR.

My girlfriend may or may not be cheating on me.

You may or may not be contributing to the discussion.

I'd like to see this draft expanded, seems the R4 violations are just in the details, not the core of the proposal itself (like, for example, purposefully condemning a player for their actions outside NS, rather than a nation)

by **Sanders Centre** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:25 pm

Interesting. I didn't realize I was so hated.

by **The Atlae Isles** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:53 pm

Sanders Centre wrote:Interesting. I didn't realize I was so hated.

You may or may not be hated.

by **The Atlae Isles** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:57 am

I do hope that the delegation from Tretrid will learn from their mistakes. :rofl:

by **The Atlae Isles** » Sun Oct 09, 2016 5:44 pm

David Hameron wrote:The Security Council may or may not see more of Sanders Centre in the future, I'm just putting that out there.

Well, there is.

[IN DRAFTING PHASE] Commend the UACN

[CANCELED] Condemn Sanders Centre

[CANCELED] Condemn Sanders Centre

Who is online