[DEFEATED] Condemn Thomas Branson III

by **The German Democratic Reich** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:56 am

The World Assembly

Recognising that Thomas Branson III has attempted multiple times to break the peace of the World Assembly

Acknowledging that Thomas Branson III has yet to concept the grasp of comedy, and satire. And has attempted to make the World Assembly a joke itself.

Noting Thomas Branson III has attempted to gain power over everyone else in the World Assembly via mass telegraming for nonexistant campaigns

Understanding Thomas Branson III is a nation unfit for any form of power, and attempts to crush ideologies that are opposite of it.

Realizing Thomas Branson III has disrupted the WA and created more problems that did not exist initially.

Hereby condemns, Thomas Branson III

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1459960553

by **Bhang Bhang Duc** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:50 am

Against. We should deprive him of the oxygen of publicity.

by **Louisistan** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 4:53 am

Just let the April Fool's thing die already. It's April 7th now.

by **We Are Not the NSA** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:21 am

The German Democratic Reich wrote:The World Assembly

Recognising that Thomas Branson III has attempted multiple times to break the peace of the World Assembly

And so begins the use of inconsistent punctuation. Also, Bitely has never tried to disrupt the peace in the WA, he just does. People paying attention to him like he's somehow important to the WA is what causes the most disruption. It is more your fault than his tbh.

Acknowledging that Thomas Branson III has yet to concept the grasp of comedy, and satire. And has attempted to make the World Assembly a joke itself.

Again, Bitely has never tried to make a joke of the WA. It is the people who freak out whenever he is mentioned that are making the WA a joke.

Noting Thomas Branson III has attempted to gain power over everyone else in the World Assembly via mass telegraming for nonexistant campaigns

Telegramming has 2 "m"s. Additionally, this clause is nonsense. Lots of people send mass telegrams, it's a common practice.

Understanding Thomas Branson III is a nation unfit for any form of power, and attempts to crush ideologies that are opposite of it.

Yet he doesn't have any power with which to crush opposing ideologies.

Realizing Thomas Branson III has disrupted the WA and created more problems that did not exist initially.

IT IS ONLY A PROBLEM, BECAUSE YOU ARE MAKING IT A PROBLEM!

I can't believe we're going to have to vote on this! It's worse than the proposal that Bitely submitted.

by **Kaboomlandia** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:03 am

*punches a wall and goes off to write another insta-repeal in case it's needed*

by **Dharmascus the Great** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:31 am

Kaboomlandia wrote:*punches a wall and goes off to write another insta-repeal in case it's needed*

I'll help, if you want.

by **The Infinite Dream** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:33 am

Forgive me if I'm doing anything wrong; I'm new here.

...

Condemning because of another condemnation? Yay, vicious cycle.

by **Quantraint** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:35 am

Come on man, now you're trying to punish that guy by writing resolution as bad as(or maybe worse) than his condemnation. Can't we just get over this April fools 5h!t already...?

by **Wallenburg** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:20 pm

Please no. Just leave him alone and maybe he'll leave us alone.

by **Republica Democratica de Niteroi** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 9:09 am

it sounds like more personal than anything else
which benefits will the world assembly recieve with that? i dont see the point of this resolution...
more focus, less wasting of time.

by **Wallenburg** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 9:12 am

Fuck a bag, it's alive!

by **The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 9:14 am

You know what? I'm going against the grain here. Bitely's spent a decent amount of money on this site, so, let him have a badge. A dull, black, icky one. Voted in favor.

by **Yuledon** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 9:23 am

Is someone drafting "Condemn The German Democratic Reich" to keep this cycle of pettiness alive?

Against.

by **Basra** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 9:24 am

This grammar is awful, had me doing several double takes.

by **Moravianda** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 9:29 am

Issue 1. Bad grammar,
Issue 2. It was just an April fools
Issue 3. It's no more 1 April
Against

by **Summer-Rose** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 9:35 am

How did this get to vote?

by **Ohmberland** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 9:37 am

Against. I hate how we have to keep dragging the corpse that was the 2016 April fools joke. It had already started to stink, now it's just fetid, can we just bury it already?

Also, if you are going to be a smartarse about legislation, at least make the reasoning and grammar more attractive.

Explain xkcd · by **Leppikania** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 9:37 am

Summer-Rose wrote:How did this get to vote?

I have no idea.

by **Ohmberland** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 9:39 am

Summer-Rose wrote:How did this get to vote?

That's a question I'd have of the previous GA resolution against the Secretary-General.

by **-Mr Money-** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 9:40 am

I'm voting AGAINST.

The perfect example of Communism in it's true form, silencing anyone that speaks out against it. I hope this Communist plot fails, although looking at the infiltration of the highest echelons of the World Assembly, here's to hoping.

by **We Are Not the NSA** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 9:58 am

Did this proposal have a telegram campaign? It seems really unnatural how quickly it got to vote, considering the fact that it is poorly written and isn't condemning DEN.

by **Aaaah Snaaaake** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:02 am

The Democratic Republic of Aaaah Snaaaake is for this proposal. While some argue it is petty and over an April Fool's joke, that is quite besides the point. Whether or not one believes in communism or capitalism, many do not realize true communism can be a democracy and not an authoritarian state as history has depicted it. The nation being condemned tried to use this council to forward his own petty agenda and bitterness, and clearly showed it was not a joke to him. Aaaah Snaaaake cares nothing for badges, jokes, or pettiness, but only for integrity in rulers and nations, and does not believe it a petty action to condemn said nation for trying to abuse our highest councils for his own petty rivalries and biased agenda.

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:07 am

EDIT: Nevermind. Apparently this is not the same proposal that the author was drafting before. Still lame. Still against.

by **Trelatche** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:10 am

How very silly

by **The German Democratic Reich** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:13 am

The condemnation is aimed towards several actions he's committed

For his behavior and attitude during the incident with the previous resolution towards other World Assembly members.

For campaigning for a nonexistant "make me wa sec" campaign when no election for the position was held. This makes it spam.

For attempting to condemn a nation based off ideology and personal preference.

And for not getting Gen Sec was

And my bad on the grammar, my English is terrible and I could of sworn I saw no error on the double take.

[DEFEATED] Condemn Thomas Branson III

[DEFEATED] Condemn Thomas Branson III

Who is online