Advertisement
by Kaboomlandia » Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:52 pm
by Araraukar » Fri Apr 29, 2016 9:37 am
Kaboomlandia wrote:EDIT: And submitted. The name was two or three characters too long, so I had to drop the "Convention" part.
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 Kaboomlandia » Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:33 pm
Araraukar wrote:Kaboomlandia wrote:EDIT: And submitted. The name was two or three characters too long, so I had to drop the "Convention" part.
Change thread an latest draft titles to match, so people who look at submissions will be able to find the right thread. Also, I hope you're aware there are some delegates with quite a few votes behind them, who absolutely loathe any proposal starting with "On"? You could've just made it "Toxic Heavy Metals Act" or "Toxic Heavy Metals Convention", there was no reason to shoot yourself in the foot.
by Kaboomlandia » Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:04 pm
by Araraukar » Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:24 pm
Kaboomlandia wrote:I didn't realize starting with "On" was quite that unpopular.
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 Bananaistan » Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:20 pm
by Araraukar » Sat Apr 30, 2016 4:22 am
Bananaistan wrote:Can anyone explain why toxic heavy metals are such an awful thing for individuals and private organisations to use but just peachy for the government? Are they suddenly safe in the hands of a soldier?
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 John Turner » Sat Apr 30, 2016 1:00 pm
Bananaistan wrote:Can anyone explain why toxic heavy metals are such an awful thing for individuals and private organisations to use but just peachy for the government? Are they suddenly safe in the hands of a soldier?
John Turner wrote:Oh.... And it wasn't drafted on the forums. That makes it automatically illegal, doesn't it?
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun May 01, 2016 12:01 am
Bananaistan wrote:Can anyone explain why toxic heavy metals are such an awful thing for individuals and private organisations to use but just peachy for the government? Are they suddenly safe in the hands of a soldier?
by Kaboomlandia » Sun May 01, 2016 3:11 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon May 02, 2016 4:22 am
Kaboomlandia wrote:I've made a last-minute change. The WASP now defines what is toxic.
by Bananaistan » Mon May 02, 2016 7:12 am
Araraukar wrote:Bananaistan wrote:Can anyone explain why toxic heavy metals are such an awful thing for individuals and private organisations to use but just peachy for the government? Are they suddenly safe in the hands of a soldier?
I think the idea is that it's in the best interests of the government to keep the people working for it healthy, and that includes soldiers in the nation's own military. Whereas private organisations might care more about, say, their profits, than of the wefare of their workers. (OOC: Do note that I don't necessarily agree with this entirely.)
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Bananaistan wrote:Can anyone explain why toxic heavy metals are such an awful thing for individuals and private organisations to use but just peachy for the government? Are they suddenly safe in the hands of a soldier?
Because players, i.e. governments, care about how they are used.
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon May 02, 2016 7:21 am
by The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper » Mon May 02, 2016 7:32 am
Bananaistan wrote:Obviously I'm not at all convinced about this military exemption.
by Kryptic Slaughter » Mon May 02, 2016 9:01 am
Evil is always possible. Goodness is a difficulty!
by New Dukaine » Tue May 03, 2016 1:33 pm
The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:Bananaistan wrote:Obviously I'm not at all convinced about this military exemption.
ARI: Yes, neither does this co-author, but, we support the idea because, as we understand it, most issues with toxic heavy metals are from industrial and not military applications.
by Wrapper » Tue May 03, 2016 1:57 pm
New Dukaine wrote:The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:ARI: Yes, neither does this co-author, but, we support the idea because, as we understand it, most issues with toxic heavy metals are from industrial and not military applications.
OOC: Technically your the coauthor but whatevs
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue May 03, 2016 3:35 pm
Wrapper wrote:Anyway, what have we learned this time, Kaboom? Gotta have that campaign ready to go before you submit. You'll get it right eventually.
by Kaboomlandia » Tue May 10, 2016 6:08 am
by Kaboomlandia » Fri May 13, 2016 2:45 pm
by Kaboomlandia » Fri May 13, 2016 6:05 pm
Sciongrad wrote:OOC: Save yourself the trouble.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri May 13, 2016 11:07 pm
Kaboomlandia wrote:Sciongrad wrote:OOC: Save yourself the trouble.
Sadly, that won't work because I'm on a Mac.
by Kaboomlandia » Sat May 14, 2016 9:14 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat May 14, 2016 10:17 am
Kaboomlandia wrote:Current status: 32 approvals (26% of quorum) in 19 hours. I have sent 859 telegrams manually, 734 have gotten through, and the vast majority probably haven't even seen the telegram, so things are looking good. For comparison, I had 37 total approvals on the last submission.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement