Emprie wrote:This is where I go on a little rant about these kinds of shenanigans. But first, a few constructs I want to lay down.
1. Anyone who takes pleasure in harming others is a filthy *words that would get me banned*. If you think your funny or cute by doing that, then by all means burn in hell.
2. I got a message to vote for this measure, but nothing to vote against it. I sense copious amounts of whippersnapperism.
3. Simply put, I am all for the idealism of "Republic Sovereignty", of which in short, means that nations may rule themselves however they please outside of following international law.
I really don't see how any of this has to do with the text of my proposal.
What I see here is a dramatic flame war that makes no sense in hell.
If you think there's a flame war here, report it. The mods will tell you there isn't, because nothing here even approaches a flame war.
If you have issues with people and regions, than lock them down with a password. If you have issues with other nations, block them.
You shouldn't dictate regional or player policy. People can play how they want to play. Just because someone doesn't take precautions against raiders doesn't mean they deserve to have their region occupied. Just because someone doesn't foe another doesn't mean they deserve to get walls of actionable material thrown at them.
This, in my opinion, is limiting 1) a nations republic sovereignty,
Nothing in here limits anyone's sovereignty. The Security Council has no control over what nations can and cannot do.
2) creating drama thick enough to cut, bottle, and sell for $2.50 at the dollar store,
You seem to be the one most interested in creating drama.
and 3) creating blacklists against players,( which seems to be the only useful purpose of the Security Council, which could be good, but also quite harmful if used in the wrong application), is a perfect mixture for making any sane man, woman, or child raise an eyebrow.
I don't see any blacklists. Are you sure you actually
read my proposal? Did you post in the wrong thread? Because so far nothing you have said actually applies to this proposal.
Now, with that said, I have an issue with the author solicitation to nations that have just joined the Assembly.
I can't control that you just joined the World Assembly, and quite frankly, I don't care. I sent you a harmless message asking you to look over and, kindly, to support my proposal. That is hardly improper; in fact, it is the only way to get something passed around here nowadays.
Personally, I have read up on all WA resolutions and the last month of drama from SC,
All of them? And only after having joined the WA three days ago? I call bullshit.
and I think everything has been in good judgement with a few exceptions. This is one of them.
No, it isn't. Why? First of all, it isn't a resolution.
Personally, I think you should simply ignore the foo who is messing up your regions, and carry on. However, at the same time, it seems like if the issue is not dealt with at this negotiating table, then issues will arise.
Nobody is messing up my region. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
Personally, I will not endorse this measure, but if its gets to the voting floor, then I will decide. But as of now all I see is drama, bs, and a bunch of salty *more words that would get me banned*.
I can see that in your post. Not in the proposal, however.
As far as anyone else who is reading this forum and also got a message lobbying for votes, I would advise to do the same, as I do not think it is wise for a new member of the WA to join a lynch mob such as this (regardless if its lynching or un-lynching as in this case).
This is far from a lynch mob. Honestly, I can't imagine how any of this could possibly pertain to my proposal. Are you
sure you're on the right thread?