[PASSED] Condemn Blackhelm Confederacy

by **Corumm** » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:35 pm

Not supporting this charade at all.

by **Lordieth** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 4:19 am

Our regional vote is as follows;

FOR: 6
AGAINST: 0
Abstain: 2

Personally I have issues with fully IC condemnations; easy to deserve and easy to sell. I wanted to abstain on this but the region has spoken, and I answer to the region. FOR.

by **Warzone Codger** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 4:22 am

Having consulted with someone who actually knows what this is about (Carta/Milograd), I have switched by vote from for to AGAINST.

by **Pyshoria** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:13 am

Clearly, AGAINST

RP-Based condemnations are, at least in my opinion, a huge waste of time. I have no idea what Going Postal was thinking here.

by **Andorianus** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:16 am

Milograd wrote:
Smoke on the Water, The Blackhelm Confederacy was nuked into oblivion. Apparently, this was ignored. I'm strongly against this proposal.

(not trying to nitpick here, but... does that even matter? Just asking. Any nation in NS may be "refounded" after it is glassed, so it is not like the Blackhelm Confederacy does not exist.

by **Stedicules** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:53 am

"The Afrikaner State, although not part of the W.A. implores the members of the Security Council to vote against this proposal. Our mission, my country and the Blackhelm Confederacy's is to re-take oil fields and stockpiles from nations who claim to have "discovered" them. They take the oil that is rightfully ours, and do not expect repercussions from the theft. The Griffincrest Corporation* is doing what it rightfully should when they're slighted by nations on the international stage." -- Hergohail, Lord and Protector of the Afrikaner State

*: Blackhelm's "IC name".

by **Maroza** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:30 pm

Stedicules wrote:"The Afrikaner State, although not part of the W.A. implores the members of the Security Council to vote against this proposal. Our mission, my country and the Blackhelm Confederacy's is to re-take oil fields and stockpiles from nations who claim to have "discovered" them. They take the oil that is rightfully ours, and do not expect repercussions from the theft. The Griffincrest Corporation* is doing what it rightfully should when they're slighted by nations on the international stage." -- Hergohail, Lord and Protector of the Afrikaner State

*: Blackhelm's "IC name".

what about the unarmed civilians that were intentionally shot, raped, and tortured as a means of striking fear into the opposing nation?

by **Stedicules** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:51 pm

Maroza wrote:what about the unarmed civilians that were intentionally shot, raped, and tortured as a means of striking fear into the opposing nation?

"They stole what was rightfully ours. They're thieves. Their punishment is death." -- Hergohail, Lord and Protector of the Afrikaner State

by **Milograd** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:04 pm

Andorianus wrote:
Milograd wrote:
Smoke on the Water, The Blackhelm Confederacy was nuked into oblivion. Apparently, this was ignored. I'm strongly against this proposal.
(not trying to nitpick here, but... does that even matter? Just asking. Any nation in NS may be "refounded" after it is glassed, so it is not like the Blackhelm Confederacy does not exist.

No, I'm pretty sure he ignored Smoke on the Water, and thats pretty messed up to begin with. That said, the re-foundation theory is quite silly, trust me. The Blackhelm Confederacy could exist, but it'd be an incredibly messed up society/country. The people of the DD glassed him into the ground, with very little being left 'unharmed'. That said, the Blackhelm Confederacy's existence is far too debated for a condemnation of the said nation to exist, so nay.

by **Flemingovia** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 8:58 am

Still bewildered. Blackhelm is being condemned for pretending to do stuff?

by **Knootoss** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:02 am

Flemingovia wrote:Still bewildered. Blackhelm is being condemned for pretending to do stuff?

OOC: And this is different from whatever it is you do in NS... how?

by **Andorianus** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:42 am

Wait a sec... this is getting confusing. Because Blackhelm was nuked some time ago, he is in effect ignored by the World Assembly? Or is Blackhelm ignored because he ignored said nuclear strike? Or is there something else and am I completely missing the point here?

:absolute confusion:

by **Jadaun** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:32 am

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Thanking you,
Yatharth Singh Jadaun,
The Rightful Emperor of The Jadaun Empire

by **Wiztopia** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 12:26 pm

Flemingovia wrote:Still bewildered. Blackhelm is being condemned for pretending to do stuff?

I guess so. I find Commendation and Condemnation a waste of time since it doesn't do anything nor is there anything like it in the real world.

by **Milograd** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:15 pm

Andorianus wrote:Wait a sec... this is getting confusing. Because Blackhelm was nuked some time ago, he is in effect ignored by the World Assembly? Or is Blackhelm ignored because he ignored said nuclear strike? Or is there something else and am I completely missing the point here?

:absolute confusion:

Smoke on the Water

Thats where he got annihilated. He ignored it, but many people acknowledge it as canon. That said, it is somewhat debated whether or not he could have done some of the things he is being condemned for, given that he was nuked into dust, and that he carried on in his actions after this (iirc).

More or less you have to ask, "How can you attack someone without an army?"

The 'theme' of that question is my main issue, if anything.

I'm also referencing this post, for the record.

by **Blackhelm Confederacy** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:32 pm

Milograd wrote:
Andorianus wrote:Wait a sec... this is getting confusing. Because Blackhelm was nuked some time ago, he is in effect ignored by the World Assembly? Or is Blackhelm ignored because he ignored said nuclear strike? Or is there something else and am I completely missing the point here?

:absolute confusion:

Smoke on the Water

Thats where he got annihilated. He ignored it, but many people acknowledge it as canon. That said, it is somewhat debated whether or not he could have done some of the things he is being condemned for, given that he was nuked into dust, and that he carried on in his actions after this (iirc).

More or less you have to ask, "How can you attack someone without an army?"

The 'theme' of that question is my main issue, if anything.

I'm also referencing this post, for the record.

Arghh I'm so sick of arguing over that thread. Do bother to read the whole thing as well as the OOC please. It ended and then it didnt and then I didnt feel like doing it any more, so BS peace was made but Kat was all butt hurt because it didnt end how he wanted so he claimed nuclear holocaust and I claimed him as a colony. It went on for almost a year, some people have real lives to deal with.

Edit: I agreed to this: viewtopic.php?p=2021752#p2021752
When they tried to push for more nonsense I said no and the thread was over so Kat cried

by **Mahaj** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:41 pm

Knootoss wrote:
Flemingovia wrote:Still bewildered. Blackhelm is being condemned for pretending to do stuff?

OOC: And this is different from whatever it is you do in NS... how?

Because some of us like to actually take over the delegacy as opposed to pretending to.

by **Milograd** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:44 pm

Mahaj wrote:
Knootoss wrote:
OOC: And this is different from whatever it is you do in NS... how?

Because some of us like to actually take over the delegacy as opposed to pretending to.

There is a fine line between roleplaying and gameplay, and just because the things that happen in II aren't as concrete as gameplay related actions, it doesn't mean that it can't be applied in the World Assembly. :unsure:

by **Mahaj** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:57 pm

Milograd wrote:
Mahaj wrote:Because some of us like to actually take over the delegacy as opposed to pretending to.

There is a fine line between roleplaying and gameplay, and just because the things that happen in II aren't as concrete as gameplay related actions, it doesn't mean that it can't be applied in the World Assembly.

OOC: But the problem is, anyone can be an evil RP guy, its harder to be an evil GP guy.

by **Milograd** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:24 pm

Mahaj wrote:
Milograd wrote:There is a fine line between roleplaying and gameplay, and just because the things that happen in II aren't as concrete as gameplay related actions, it doesn't mean that it can't be applied in the World Assembly.

OOC: But the problem is, anyone can be an evil RP guy, its harder to be an evil GP guy.

OoC: Raid a region, kick people, profit?

Yeah, I don't mean to be rude Mahaj, but on what grounds do you say that? Do you really mean to say that you can speak from a roleplayer's perspective, and say that being an 'evil' RP guy is easy?

Being a 'bad guy' in II is quite easy, doing it the right way...not so much. To be honest, most 'evil' nations bore me, since they are very rarely done properly.

by **-The West Coast-** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:00 pm

Mahaj wrote:
Milograd wrote:There is a fine line between roleplaying and gameplay, and just because the things that happen in II aren't as concrete as gameplay related actions, it doesn't mean that it can't be applied in the World Assembly.

OOC: But the problem is, anyone can be an evil RP guy, its harder to be an evil GP guy.

OOC;

Actually, its completely opposite. RP'ing a nation that is evil is incredibly hard to do correctly. A Gameplay bad guy is easy to do. I mean, look at Durkadurkairanistan II. He's a bad Gameplay guy and it took him what, an hour or two of occupation?

by **Wiztopia** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:03 pm

OOC: viewtopic.php?p=6145081#p6145081

Can anybody tell me the point of these?

[PASSED] Condemn Blackhelm Confederacy

Appeal For Peace

Who is online