Page 1 of 7
[DEFEATED] Liberate NAZI EUROPE
Posted:
Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:41 pmby The Dourian Embassy
The Security Council,
Believing that NAZI EUROPE should become open to invasion
Hereby liberates NAZI EUROPE.
Co-Authored by Tim-Opolis.
This is the result of a long drafting process and a ton of hard work. I'm glad to have your support. Thank you.
Posted:
Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:44 pmby Cylarn
The Dourian Embassy wrote:The Security Council,
Believing that NAZI EUROPE should become open to invasion
Hereby liberates NAZI EUROPE.
Co-Authored by Tim-Opolis.
This is the result of a long drafting process and a ton of hard work. I'm glad to have your support. Thank you.
I like it.
Posted:
Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:45 pmby Grenetar
1st cool
anyway I would live to liberate nazi Europe.
Posted:
Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:45 pmby Grenetar
Grenetar wrote:1st cool
anyway I would live to liberate nazi Europe.
nevermind im not first.
Posted:
Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:05 pmby Topdop
Again?
Posted:
Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:42 pmby Typhlochactas
No.
Posted:
Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:43 pmby Captain Woodhouse
Oh, this is another can of worms entirely: a Liber
tation.
Posted:
Thu Nov 15, 2012 8:23 pmby Newtered States
The Dourian Embassy wrote:The Security Council,
Believing that NAZI EUROPE should become open to invasion
Hereby liberates NAZI EUROPE.
Co-Authored by Tim-Opolis.
This is the result of a long drafting process and a ton of hard work. I'm glad to have your support. Thank you.
You should change it to:
Believing that NAZI EUROPE should become open to invasion
,<-----comma.
Hereby liberates NAZI EUROPE.
Does this mean I get co-authorship?
Posted:
Thu Nov 15, 2012 8:31 pmby Sciongrad
Totally for. What's the SC for if not to create Nazi-related chaos.?
Posted:
Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:05 pmby Skyrim Diplomacy
*sigh*
Posted:
Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:29 pmby The National Front Disco
Liberated Nazis? Yes please!
I'm really looking forward to this vote. I think I'll go buy a new suit to wear during the debate. Probably something in leather....
Posted:
Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:33 amby Sedgistan
What contributions did Tim-Opolis make to the writing of this proposal?
Posted:
Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:16 amby The Dourian Embassy
Sedgistan wrote:What contributions did Tim-Opolis make to the writing of this proposal?
He contributed the middle clause in it's entirety. I wrote everything else.
Posted:
Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:15 amby Benomia
I am so done with The Dourian Embassy...
If this comes to vote, I'll vote against it.
Posted:
Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:13 amby Sedgistan
The Dourian Embassy wrote:Sedgistan wrote:What contributions did Tim-Opolis make to the writing of this proposal?
He contributed the middle clause in it's entirety. I wrote everything else.
Right. Just that co-authorship is supposed to recognise a "significant" contribution to a proposal. I guess in percentage terms, his was significant, but in terms of the actual amount of content added...
I'm not going to delete this particular one as a co-authorship violation, but if you (and certain others) continue to submit idiotic, and virtually content-less proposals, there will be modly intervention - namely deletion of the proposals, and warnings for spamming the queue.
Just bear that in mind.
Posted:
Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:14 amby United Federation of Canada
This actually made quorum????
Do the Esteemed delegates even read these things? While I agree the the idea of Nazi Europe sounds evil, have they actually committed any atrocities lately to warrant such action?
While I would love to vote for this, it is so poorly written, drips of sarcasm, and is just plain trash.
AGAINSTOCC: At least Cormac Stark's proposal has some eloquence to it. Could you maybe have put a little effort into this one? This is why the Security Council is doomed to fail, because trash like this makes quorum and we actually have to waste 3 days voting on it. Maybe you should have been condemned for continually wasting the Security Council's time with this garbage.
Posted:
Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:33 amby Omigodtheykilledkenny
There are "co-authorship violations" now? Can you cite chapter and verse where the SC even decided to impose
any limits on co-authorship, let alone a minimum requisite level of contribution?
Posted:
Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:43 amby The Great Destruction
Sedgistan wrote:<snip>..., but if you (and certain others) continue to submit idiotic, and virtually content-less proposals, there will be modly intervention - namely deletion of the proposals, and warnings for spamming the queue.
Just bear that in mind.
Its about time one of you mods said that.
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:There are "co-authorship violations" now? Can you cite chapter and verse where the SC even decided to impose
any limits on co-authorship, let alone a minimum requisite level of contribution?
Thats easy. It can be found
here.
Co-authors:
Multiple co-authors are allowed in the Security Council. Co-authors must be nations, not regions/organisations:
Ardchoille wrote:An authorship credit is for doing almost as much work on the proposal as the author -- a complete re-write, for example. It's not for collective critiquing, whether done by a forum or by region members.
There is no limit on co-authors, but a "reality-imposed limit" of 3 has been suggested. Nations which no longer exist can be cited, so long as they actually contributed to the authoring of the resolution. However, citing nations which are dead and clearly didn't contribute to the proposal may get your proposal deleted - as in this case (more on it here). Only those who contributed to the text of the proposal should be listed, so campaigners, lobbyists etc. should not be named - see here. Note that the text should make crystal clear that the listed nations are co-authors, or it may be considered a list of supporters, as per this ruling.
Posted:
Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:55 amby Sedgistan
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:There are "co-authorship violations" now? Can you cite chapter and verse where the SC even decided to impose
any limits on co-authorship, let alone a minimum requisite level of contribution?
Try looking before snarking in future.
Posted:
Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:32 pmby Omigodtheykilledkenny
OK. Who are the "certain others" who will be cited for rules violations for submitting dumb proposals? Because Douria's the only one I know of lately who's arguably done so.
Posted:
Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:46 pmby Dagguerro
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:OK. Who are the "certain others" who will be cited for rules violations for submitting dumb proposals? Because Douria's the only one I know of lately who's arguably done so.
I would guess that's a reference to Newtered States and the Commend Sedgistan proposal currently at quorum which consists of precisely two sentences of text, one of which is the operative clause.
Posted:
Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:49 pmby The Dourian Embassy
Dagguerro wrote:I would guess that's a reference to Newtered States and the Commend Sedgistan proposal currently at quorum which consists of precisely two sentences of text, one of which is the operative clause.
I'm not entirely sure that's fair. Independently submitted proposals shouldn't be grounds for "spamming the queue". Until they come to vote, other than the delegates who approve it, who can tell if it's a bad proposal? I think as long as it gets the approvals, and it's legal it's not a "dumb proposal" but that's just me.
That said, I don't plan on running any more SC resolutions for a while(or telegramming for other's SC resolutions). So the point is moot. Unless someone else takes up the torch, I doubt this will go any further.
Posted:
Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:00 pmby Frattastan
How unoriginal.
Cormac was writing Liberations of NE before it was cool.
Posted:
Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:05 pmby Mahaj
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:OK. Who are the "certain others" who will be cited for rules violations for submitting dumb proposals? Because Douria's the only one I know of lately who's arguably done so.
well, (actually i should have replied to your last post)...
if you name someone as a coauthor who doesn't want to be, they can submit a GHR and get it deleted.
Posted:
Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:25 pmby Tim-Opolis
*gets dragged into the thread by Mahaj*
*waves*
Hey.. Well this proposal escalated quickly O.o
I didn't actually think it was going to be.. you know.. doing stuff.
Anyways, I'm going to be voting AGAINST the Proposal. As said earlier, at least other drafts have been... longer.. and more detailed.