[FAILED] Condemn Mikeswill

[Barrackistan]

Hey guys, can I get some feedback on this Proposal. Thanks.

[Barrackistan]

World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that Mikeswill has already lost the Commendation of this august assembly as a result of Security Council Resolution 72;

MAKING NOTE that Mikeswill has been the delegate of the region of NationStates for about 9 years and has refused to let any other nation have a chance to lead NationStates;

NOTING that Mikeswill is known for continually ejecting nations that he doesn't agree with, especially if those nations announce support for the Security Council

DISAPPROVING of the fact that Mikeswill claims to be a World Assembly member yet continued to hold a strong anti-Security Council stance against this assembly

AND HORRIFIED that Mikeswill claims to be a peaceful nation yet is secretly controlling Highlander 1, a prominent raider nation, which was already proved by investigations done by the A mean old man

THUS condemns Mikeswill for his hypocrisy in the raider game and his dictator-like reign over NationStates.

[Mikeswill]

Good Evening Fellow Players,

Mikeswill is the longest serving Delegate of any region because of a computer glitch which allowed him to get credit a day before New Texas when the counter was restarted.

When I began play there were maybe 23 Nations in NationStates Region. Via counsel by a defender and an old raider I was asked to keep the region secure. Part of my success was excellent recruiting given the rules of years past. Another part of my success was via information networks.

Mikeswill resides in a region without a founder. As such, I do not have founder controls and am limited to the Password mechanism to thwart potential raids. When the Security Council was created to basically usurp the Delegates power via Liberation legislation I found this as a potential threat to my region.

When I voiced my opinion against the Security Council I was derided by Defenders and thereby applauded by Raiders. It is possible that over the years Raiders have looked elsewhere to raid given my strong Anti-Security Council stance. Nevertheless, that did not stop them from trying on numerous occasions, the last attempt saved by Defender intervention.

As I have been the UN-WA Delegate of this region since November 16, 2003 via Mikes Hope and Mikeswill, I have thus never raided. What is interesting is that my dissent from the popular view has ostracized me from the popular players. So be it.

To the point at hand: the author is sore because I found out he was planning to use raiders to take control of the region so I Banjected him. If there is fodder in the above to legitimize a condemnation I would suggest that it include my fundamental disdain for the Security Council as a legitimate entity for which I shall gladly accept the Condemnation.

Mike

[Eist]

Good Evening Fellow Players,

Mikeswill is the longest serving Delegate of any region because of a computer glitch which allowed him to get credit a day before New Texas when the counter was restarted.

When I began play there were maybe 23 Nations in NationStates Region. Via counsel by a defender and an old raider I was asked to keep the region secure. Part of my success was excellent recruiting given the rules of years past. Another part of my success was via information networks.

Mikeswill resides in a region without a founder. As such, I do not have founder controls and am limited to the Password mechanism to thwart potential raids. When the Security Council was created to basically usurp the Delegates power via Liberation legislation I found this as a potential threat to my region.

When I voiced my opinion against the Security Council I was derided by Defenders and thereby applauded by Raiders. It is possible that over the years Raiders have looked elsewhere to raid given my strong Anti-Security Council stance. Nevertheless, that did not stop them from trying on numerous occasions, the last attempt saved by Defender intervention.

As I have been the UN-WA Delegate of this region since November 16, 2003 via Mikes Hope and Mikeswill, I have thus never raided. What is interesting is that my dissent from the popular view has ostracized me from the popular players. So be it.

To the point at hand: the author is sore because I found out he was planning to use raiders to take control of the region so I Banjected him. If there is fodder in the above to legitimize a condemnation I would suggest that it include my fundamental disdain for the Security Council as a legitimate entity for which I shall gladly accept the Condemnation.

Mike

As you are well aware, it's not that a lot of people dislike you because of your supposed "dissent from the popular view". Rather it's that, with your formerly unknown but now well known puppet raider nation The Highlander 1, you come across as completely two-faced. Nobody knows where you stand. It's fascinating that you neglected that in your speech.

[Solorni]

I like Mike

I don't understand why he is so polarizing

[Mikeswill]

I know for a fact that The Highlander 1 has never been a UN-WA Member nor has said Nation ever led a raid. Whereas I have used numerous guises in the past to gather information and thus keep the Region I serve safe and secure, the fact that I never informed either Defenders or Raiders of the identity of said network is because neither side is trustworthy ~ Raiders because they claim no moral high ground nor Defenders who act as if they were Raiders while touting righteous legitimization.

In the daze of The DEN and the FRA and TITO many Nations played sides to gather information. Often Nations changed sides thereby damaging their prior allegiances. Under such an environment I was not about to disclose undercover operations just as TITO or The Black Hawks aren't about to disclose their moles. If defenders and raiders can play the game of espionage why do my same actions, which are based solely on protecting a founderless region, upset so many from the defender camp? The raiders could careless as there exist insufficient agreement across said camp to stop any group from initiating a raid. In fact, by disclosing my main operative, AMOM only served the security of the region I serve.

Nevertheless, as a school teacher I find all of this game playing incredibly interesting on how easily nations jumped on the mob bandwagon to ostracize my nation on the hearsay of others whilst never considering what actions they would have taken given like circumstances.

I reiterate: I am the WA Delegate of a Founderless region named after the game and thus a prize target of many a raider to this day. Whereas 10,0000 Islands and Texas have founders who could secure the evolution of their respective regions were extreme measures needed, we in NationStates, who had experienced numerous raids prior to my arrival, did not have such measures available. Moreover, in the beginning it was my recruitment efforts which grew the region from 23 Nations to over 600 prior to the days of puppet cloning. In these 10 years the region I serve is still relevant and secure via my continued recruitment, ability to password protect the borders, and constant vigilance against attack. If I was able to use operatives to such a degree that a few nations got confused then so be it.

At the end of the day I have logged into this site nearly everyday for 10 years. I do not pander to defenders and I am always vigilant lest a raider take the region in the dark of night. These public interchanges only hasten the day when raiders win t which time my efforts might better be served in other endeavors. Until said time I shall continue to loom as a voice of dissent against the Security Council and a home to that segment of nations who could careless about off-site or game forums, regional governments or armies. We shall eat our Brownies, contemplate tao, play trivia, and muse to old tunes.

Mike

[Mikeswill]

Who has Mikeswill raided? He's been parked in NS for ever.

True story

[A mean old man]

I disapprove of this draft.

[Barrackistan]

I disapprove of this draft.

I asked for your feedback and you gave me nothing. I have to work with something.

[Barrackistan]

:)

I know for a fact that The Highlander 1 has never been a UN-WA Member nor has said Nation ever led a raid. Whereas I have used numerous guises in the past to gather information and thus keep the Region I serve safe and secure, the fact that I never informed either Defenders or Raiders of the identity of said network is because neither side is trustworthy ~ Raiders because they claim no moral high ground nor Defenders who act as if they were Raiders while touting righteous legitimization.

Highlander 1 was already affiliated with a raider organization and your Ile de France was created for raiders. You can't claim to be neutral if you have a raider organizer

In the daze of The DEN and the FRA and TITO many Nations played sides to gather information. Often Nations changed sides thereby damaging their prior allegiances. Under such an environment I was not about to disclose undercover operations just as TITO or The Black Hawks aren't about to disclose their moles. If defenders and raiders can play the game of espionage why do my same actions, which are based solely on protecting a founderless region, upset so many from the defender camp? The raiders could careless as there exist insufficient agreement across said camp to stop any group from initiating a raid. In fact, by disclosing my main operative, AMOM only served the security of the region I serve.

You can't be friends with all and allies with none if you are sending spies and creating fake alliances. You are wearing the wrong suit

I reiterate: I am the WA Delegate of a Founderless region named after the game and thus a prize target of many a raider to this day. Whereas 10,0000 Islands and Texas have founders who could secure the evolution of their respective regions were extreme measures needed, we in NationStates, who had experienced numerous raids prior to my arrival, did not have such measures available. Moreover, in the beginning it was my recruitment efforts which grew the region from 23 Nations to over 600 prior to the days of puppet cloning. In these 10 years the region I serve is still relevant and secure via my continued recruitment, ability to password protect the borders, and constant vigilance against attack. If I was able to use operatives to such a degree that a few nations got confused then so be it.

And you use such powers to justify banning or ejecting many nations in your region who don't agree with your agenda. NationStates seems pretty lame region as during me visit, I only saw a handful of active nations and many of them are dead or inactive. The biggest reason is likely the fact that you have controlled the delegacy for too long now and people can get sick of the same person.

At the end of the day I have logged into this site nearly everyday for 10 years. I do not pander to defenders and I am always vigilant lest a raider take the region in the dark of night. These public interchanges only hasten the day when raiders win t which time my efforts might better be served in other endeavors. Until said time I shall continue to loom as a voice of dissent against the Security Council and a home to that segment of nations who could careless about off-site or game forums, regional governments or armies. We shall eat our Brownies, contemplate tao, play trivia, and muse to old tunes.

Mike

[Solorni]

This seems personal

I don't think the nations of nationstates the region are getting sick of mike...

[Abacathea]

Having reviewed all the evidence put forth we rise against this proposal.

It's arguments are quite weak at best. Let's examine shall we?

The nations are dead/inactive. You blame this on the delegacy being in place too long and them being potentially sick of the same person. Trying to sell me a lemon here I think. Look at NewTexas, Wysteria, Monkey Island etc... Very active regions very long term powers in place.

Friends with all allies with none. Interesting. That's the Abacathean approach and we would argue that very very few nations dislike us. It is possible to pull it off, easily no matter whom you associate with.

Just two nitpicks. Now to the crux of my assessment. This seems personal and the SC is not the location for personal pissing contests. So shake it off, put it away and move on.

[Mallorea and Riva]

This seems personal and the SC is not the location for personal pissing contests.

Nonsense!

[DWAsnia]

This seems personal and the SC is not the location for personal pissing contests.

Nonsense!

I think Mad Jack'd disagree with you Abacthea

[Abacathea]

Nonsense!

I think Mad Jack'd disagree with you Abacthea

This seems personal and the SC is not the location for personal pissing contests.

Nonsense!

In hindsight not the smartest comment I've ever made on these forums lol.

[DWAsnia]

In hindsight not the smartest comment I've ever made on these forums lol.

Nonsense!

Fixed

[Shadow Afforess]

Good Evening Fellow Players,

Mikeswill is the longest serving Delegate of any region because of a computer glitch which allowed him to get credit a day before New Texas when the counter was restarted.

When I began play there were maybe 23 Nations in NationStates Region. Via counsel by a defender and an old raider I was asked to keep the region secure. Part of my success was excellent recruiting given the rules of years past. Another part of my success was via information networks.

Mikeswill resides in a region without a founder. As such, I do not have founder controls and am limited to the Password mechanism to thwart potential raids. When the Security Council was created to basically usurp the Delegates power via Liberation legislation I found this as a potential threat to my region.

When I voiced my opinion against the Security Council I was derided by Defenders and thereby applauded by Raiders. It is possible that over the years Raiders have looked elsewhere to raid given my strong Anti-Security Council stance. Nevertheless, that did not stop them from trying on numerous occasions, the last attempt saved by Defender intervention.

As I have been the UN-WA Delegate of this region since November 16, 2003 via Mikes Hope and Mikeswill, I have thus never raided. What is interesting is that my dissent from the popular view has ostracized me from the popular players. So be it.

To the point at hand: the author is sore because I found out he was planning to use raiders to take control of the region so I Banjected him. If there is fodder in the above to legitimize a condemnation I would suggest that it include my fundamental disdain for the Security Council as a legitimate entity for which I shall gladly accept the Condemnation.

Mike

In the rare event this dung heap of a proposal makes an unseemly appearance to the SC floor, I pledge to pay whatever cost necessary to send your message reproduced here to every WA member, and fight this proposal tooth and nail. Mikeswill is 10 times the player I am.

[Weed]

There is nothing impressive about this nominee.

[Mad Jack]

Nonsense!

I think Mad Jack'd disagree with you Abacthea

[Mallorea and Riva]

There is nothing impressive about this nominee.

Also nonsense.

[Solorni]

Also, how am I and Afforeness agreeing on so many things lately??

[Evil Wolf]

Who has Mikeswill raided? He's been parked in NS for ever.

He was in DEN back in the day.

And by "back in the day" we're talking nearly a decade since he last actively participated in a raid.

Reaching much?

[Mikeswill]

He was in DEN back in the day.

And by "back in the day" we're talking nearly a decade since he last actively participated in a raid.

Reaching much?

Mikeswill never led a single raid nor did his UN-WA predecessor Mikes Hope who became Delegate of NationStates region on or about November 16, 2003 only 19 days after Mikeswill was created. (Just for the record).

Alas, with only two hours remaining it looks as if this farce shall die with nary a whimper.

[The Highlander 1]

I can attest that the above remarks by Mikeswill are true!

[Averoigne]

Well, Highlander 1 isn't "prominent" enough to be noticed by some on this thread.