Advertisement
by Wicconian » Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:24 am
by The Laurentian Federation » Tue Nov 15, 2016 1:31 pm
by Ndaku » Tue Nov 15, 2016 1:48 pm
by Patrykstan » Tue Nov 15, 2016 2:45 pm
by We Are Not the NSA » Tue Nov 15, 2016 3:17 pm
Patrykstan wrote:The writer of this proposal will regret crying wolf over a prank when a real problem occurs and they won't have any nation standing by them for aid.
Raiding History | Security Council | Dear Natives | TWP Raid |
by Leppikania » Tue Nov 15, 2016 5:26 pm
by Wasa Radamai » Tue Nov 15, 2016 6:06 pm
The Laurentian Federation wrote:The first letters of each paragraph from bottom to up spells INVADER
by Belveria » Tue Nov 15, 2016 6:15 pm
by Drasnia » Tue Nov 15, 2016 6:20 pm
Belveria wrote:It sounds as if the UDL fell apart and has little to now power while the INVADERS maintain control and power. The theory is the same here as it is in a Capitalist economy, rise and fall on their own merits...it would appear they fell.
by Kaboomlandia » Tue Nov 15, 2016 6:38 pm
by General Knot » Tue Nov 15, 2016 6:41 pm
Drasnia wrote:No. A member of the Invaders founded a fake region and is advertising it through this proposal.
by General Knot » Tue Nov 15, 2016 7:37 pm
Wordy wrote:Yes I see from that little link that it was once in Halc's hands. Good lord why bring even a whisper of a DOS rule breaker to this thread?
by Kitsco » Tue Nov 15, 2016 8:47 pm
by Druznia » Tue Nov 15, 2016 11:20 pm
Ndaku wrote:The region is already annexed with an active puppet stationed. Even if it were to be liberated, there'd be no use trying to get the region back with an active founder. A proposal like this should have been put forth a long time ago before annexation. Now, it's too late. Against.
Wicconian wrote:My stance on this matter is: unmoved.
Concerns: I question the validity of the resolution on whether there is enough factual information to determine whether intervention is required. I also believe there is things happening behind the scene that we aren't aware of.
I won't be voting for on this resolution.
Deloris Hijani
Wicconian
by Wallenburg » Wed Nov 16, 2016 12:28 am
by Chairman Cities » Wed Nov 16, 2016 10:47 am
by Tinhampton » Wed Nov 16, 2016 12:45 pm
by Ndaku » Wed Nov 16, 2016 10:40 pm
Druznia wrote:Ndaku wrote:The region is already annexed with an active puppet stationed. Even if it were to be liberated, there'd be no use trying to get the region back with an active founder. A proposal like this should have been put forth a long time ago before annexation. Now, it's too late. Against.
Then why didn't you abstain from voting?Wicconian wrote:My stance on this matter is: unmoved.
Concerns: I question the validity of the resolution on whether there is enough factual information to determine whether intervention is required. I also believe there is things happening behind the scene that we aren't aware of.
I won't be voting for on this resolution.
Deloris Hijani
Wicconian
Me neither, Your Highness.
King Pyotr I/Царь Петр I
The Kingdom of Druznia
by Western Evilly » Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:48 am
Kitsco wrote:This proposal is absurd now that I'm looking deeper into it...
How can this council Liberate a region with a founder? even if we liberate, the founder usually has legitimate control over his/her region..
In this case the founder had intended the region to be a defender region, and switched sides. That is a matter of their personal choice, one we can not change, however, regrettable it maybe.
I vote against this, and in hopes that the defenders of the region seek refuge with other defender regions.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement