Advertisement
by Philimbesi » Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:11 am
by The Rich Port » Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:18 am
by The Rich Port » Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:21 am
by Philimbesi » Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:21 am
-25 Points for "No one got the point"
by The Palentine » Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:37 am
by Koumpounophobia » Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:57 am
by Minyos » Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:07 pm
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:28 pm
by Plutoni » Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:42 pm
by Doitzel » Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:15 pm
Sedgistan wrote:And apparently some people don't even check the post just above theirs when they post.
Again, for those who don't understand:Sedgistan wrote:In basic technical terms, it would prevent delegates of The Security Council from imposing a password on that region.
However, in reality, the resolution is there to guage support for this suggestion.
by Sedgistan » Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:29 pm
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:34 pm
Sedgistan wrote:I think we could have a lot of fun vetoing GA resolutions...
by Unibotian WASC Mission » Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:11 pm
Doitzel wrote:Sedgistan wrote:And apparently some people don't even check the post just above theirs when they post.
Again, for those who don't understand:Sedgistan wrote:In basic technical terms, it would prevent delegates of The Security Council from imposing a password on that region.
However, in reality, the resolution is there to guage support for this suggestion.
..you can bring up a debate that has no place in the WA (or any in-game areas)...
by Koumpounophobia » Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:17 pm
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:Doitzel wrote:Sedgistan wrote:And apparently some people don't even check the post just above theirs when they post.
Again, for those who don't understand:Sedgistan wrote:In basic technical terms, it would prevent delegates of The Security Council from imposing a password on that region.
However, in reality, the resolution is there to guage support for this suggestion.
..you can bring up a debate that has no place in the WA (or any in-game areas)...
Excuse me.. but I thought this was the Security Council... as in, the institution thats being liberated from the General Assembly (and vice versa), did I miss something ? Or do I have the wrong Security Council !?
by Philimbesi » Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:24 pm
by Doitzel » Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:57 pm
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:Doitzel wrote:Sedgistan wrote:And apparently some people don't even check the post just above theirs when they post.
Again, for those who don't understand:Sedgistan wrote:In basic technical terms, it would prevent delegates of The Security Council from imposing a password on that region.
However, in reality, the resolution is there to guage support for this suggestion.
..you can bring up a debate that has no place in the WA (or any in-game areas)...
Excuse me.. but I thought this was the Security Council... as in, the institution thats being liberated from the General Assembly (and vice versa), did I miss something ? Or do I have the wrong Security Council !?
by Unibotian WASC Mission » Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:33 pm
Doitzel wrote:Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:Doitzel wrote:Sedgistan wrote:And apparently some people don't even check the post just above theirs when they post.
Again, for those who don't understand:Sedgistan wrote:In basic technical terms, it would prevent delegates of The Security Council from imposing a password on that region.
However, in reality, the resolution is there to guage support for this suggestion.
..you can bring up a debate that has no place in the WA (or any in-game areas)...
Excuse me.. but I thought this was the Security Council... as in, the institution thats being liberated from the General Assembly (and vice versa), did I miss something ? Or do I have the wrong Security Council !?
Yeah, the Delegate is really going to draft a proposal to liberate a region from himself when the region cannot be liberated because the measures being petitioned against are not in place. Just because other people want to roleplay an idiot doesn't mean I have to. This is a breach of roleplay barriers -- there are separate methods and areas for discussing game mechanics for a reason.
And no, as I said, this is not an accurate way to gauge support: people not only don't understand this, but the WA has a tendency to vote for anything (good example recently: we passed Protection of Monuments and then repealed it a few days later just because both proposals were loaded with buzzwords).
Also so we're clear, since the quoted poster did not recognise this, I am speaking OOC; I refer to my nation in the third person when roleplaying, myself in the first when not. That should be obvious given the nature of what I'm talking about, but hey...
by Kandarin » Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:47 pm
I wish I remember who wrote:Games like Nationstates are like a big cardboard box, and there are two kinds of people in the world. The kind who look at the empty void inside the box and ask "Where the hell is it?" and the kind who jump into the box with their friends and make it into a fort, or a spaceship.
by Klaus Devestatorie » Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:48 pm
by Todd McCloud » Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:53 pm
Sedgistan wrote:Its not illegal, otherwise Ardchoille wouldn't have encouraged it.
by Unibotian WASC Mission » Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:57 pm
Klaus Devestatorie wrote:A WA resolution that is illegal due to fiddling with game mechanics is more or less demanding the administrators fiddle with game mechanics. If only for the irony, I'm voting yes.
by Koumpounophobia » Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:50 pm
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:Klaus Devestatorie wrote:A WA resolution that is illegal due to fiddling with game mechanics is more or less demanding the administrators fiddle with game mechanics. If only for the irony, I'm voting yes.
Trust me.. with my track record of deleted proposals, if this was illegal, I would have been told with an abrupt telegram message from NationStates Moderators to tell me the bad news and offer the ol' complimentary copy and pasted list of delegates who supported it.
And if this was illegal, it would be hilarious considering the much lighter offences my previously deleted proposals committed (Consortiums are for member nations -- but you can't say that, and you can't apologize in proposals... yada yada yada)
by Unibotian WASC Mission » Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:55 pm
Very true. Personally, I think that if a large-enough group asks for it, then it should be given
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement