Advertisement
by Lukas Ernesto » Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:28 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:31 pm
Lukas Ernesto wrote:Guys I'm really wondering what the use of the Security council is, is it gonna sanction countries that are opposing it?
by Araraukar » Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:35 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Commends and condemns don't do anything.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Hannasea » Mon Jul 25, 2016 3:11 am
Kryozerkia wrote:The 'No Military' rule has been completely removed. The only remaining obstacle is resolution #2: Rights and Duties of WA States, otherwise it's subject to remaining rules, including the committee rule.
Kryozerkia wrote:Do not use these categories to establish a WA military force. These are resolutions to change the level of national government spending. The WA cannot maintain its own standing military under any circumstances.
by Bears Armed Mission » Mon Jul 25, 2016 3:48 am
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:20 am
Hannasea wrote:There is a contradiction in the proposal rules:Kryozerkia wrote:The 'No Military' rule has been completely removed. The only remaining obstacle is resolution #2: Rights and Duties of WA States, otherwise it's subject to remaining rules, including the committee rule.Kryozerkia wrote:Do not use these categories to establish a WA military force. These are resolutions to change the level of national government spending. The WA cannot maintain its own standing military under any circumstances.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:25 am
Araraukar wrote:Considering Hitler & co. were a military regime (even before he rose to power), it leads to another hilarious opposites situation.
by Araraukar » Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:12 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Wrapper » Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:33 am
by Wrapper » Mon Jul 25, 2016 2:18 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Jul 31, 2016 4:37 pm
Kutzooi wrote:Does my country actually have to abide by the WA laws? And what are the consequences if I don't?
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:58 am
Kutzooi wrote:Does my country actually have to abide by the WA laws?
Kutzooi wrote:And what are the consequences if I don't?
by Separatist Peoples » Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:16 am
by Wallenburg » Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:15 am
Kutzooi wrote:Does my country actually have to abide by the WA laws?
And what are the consequences if I don't?
by Kutzooi » Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:26 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:28 pm
Kutzooi wrote:Thanks for all the answers, I'm not interested in RP for now, I just wanted the pretty badge.
by Christian Democrats » Mon Aug 08, 2016 2:55 am
Hannasea wrote:Mentioning the Security Council is still illegal under the newly redrafted metagaming rule, right?
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Sedgistan » Mon Aug 08, 2016 4:20 am
by Hannasea » Mon Aug 08, 2016 12:16 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Aug 11, 2016 1:48 pm
Sedgistan wrote:My informal view is similar to CD's - you can acknowledge its existence, but legislating for it in any way that could be perceived as affecting how it could operate in-game, is a no-no.
For example, I would have considered this change in wording in WA General Fund acceptable: "1. Declares that theWorld AssemblyGeneral Assembly and Security Council shall be funded by donations from member states [...]" - that doesn't affect how the SC operates, and is doing nothing more than substituting "WA" for "GA + SC".
EDIT: I'd raised a request for someone else to take a look too, so we can give you an official answer soon.
Advertisement
Advertisement