NationStates

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:Galantius 3 you are clearly a
Communist in disguise. If you don’t support my bill you support communism. Just like you said their are only two options. Either you are a communist or a buffoon. My proposal is perfect.

Not everyone that voted against your proposal is a communist. There’s literally communist nations that voted for your proposal just for fun and just for the memes. Btw please just accept the criticism and well actually fix your proposal. Wait can you edit a proposal while it’s at vote?

Goraria wrote:

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:Galantius 3 you are clearly a
Communist in disguise. If you don’t support my bill you support communism. Just like you said their are only two options. Either you are a communist or a buffoon. My proposal is perfect.

Not everyone that voted against your proposal is a communist. There’s literally communist nations that voted for your proposal just for fun and just for the memes. Btw please just accept the criticism and well actually fix your proposal. Wait can you edit a proposal while it’s at vote?

No, you can't edit after a submission. I believe you can request it is removed from the floor, even if it is at vote. If it's on the proposal board, you can simply delete it. But to answer your question, no you can't edit after submission.

The SC is a badge hunters dream with a loose floor. A resounding no vote from here and I hope everyone else rejects this clear badgehunt. This doesn’t even format its self as a SC resolution. Who let this come to the floor?

Jedinsto wrote:

Goraria wrote:Not everyone that voted against your proposal is a communist. There’s literally communist nations that voted for your proposal just for fun and just for the memes. Btw please just accept the criticism and well actually fix your proposal. Wait can you edit a proposal while it’s at vote?

No, you can't edit after a submission. I believe you can request it is removed from the floor, even if it is at vote. If it's on the proposal board, you can simply delete it. But to answer your question, no you can't edit after submission.

Oh that’s a bummer.

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:Galantius 3 you are clearly a
Communist in disguise. If you don’t support my bill you support communism. Just like you said their are only two options. Either you are a communist or a buffoon. My proposal is perfect.

I can't even begin to fathom the number of things wrong with this statement... or where to begin... even with my reputation, I wouldn't be proud of this. The exact opposite, actually. Regardless, no proposal is perfect. There is always something more that can be done. As for the content of the proposal itself, I find that you gave no factual evidence or proof to support your claim. You gave the stereotypical anti-communist speech, without giving any examples of these alleged wrongdoings. You claim that they "decrease civil liberties" and "trap citizens within their horrifying walls", and yet you give no proof to back up these accusations. There's a reason these types of proposals don't make it past the vote, and it's' because they're very, very hard to defend with IC examples, especially ones that attack a political viewpoint (with the exception of fascism). The WA makes a point to separate itself from the domestic affairs of its member nations when it comes to proposals, something that your proposal clearly disregards.

Note that this statement comes from a staunch centrist. And on top of that, you managed to get me, a person currently hospitalized for anemia caused by vitamin deficiency, to address this, from my hospital bed. That's saying something.

Kazakhstan 3 wrote: Either you are a communist or a buffoon.

*sigh* Guess you won't be around to post about the end of the vote.

*** Kazakhstan 3, 3-day ban for flaming. *** I strongly urge you to review the site rules, and also recommend not modelling your conduct after Donald Trump. It's been stated many times in the past 5 years that were he a Nationstates user, his behavior would have gotten him banned from the site very quickly.

Well, I think it's safe to say that this proposal is all over and done with. Anyone wanna actually write a proper condemnation of the CB?

Tsaivao wrote:Well, I think it's safe to say that this proposal is all over and done with. Anyone wanna actually write a proper condemnation of the CB?

I'd pay to see that. Anyway, the hospital staff beckon. I'm out.

Tsaivao wrote:Well, I think it's safe to say that this proposal is all over and done with. Anyone wanna actually write a proper condemnation of the CB?

I won't do it myself, but I'd consider voting for it if done properly.

Sincluda wrote:

Tsaivao wrote:Well, I think it's safe to say that this proposal is all over and done with. Anyone wanna actually write a proper condemnation of the CB?

Monkchester should just submit their campaign telegram with a couple tweaks. Seriously. That would work well, actually.

Agreed, assuming they edited to make it a real proposal.

United States of Americanas wrote:The SC is a badge hunters dream with a loose floor. A resounding no vote from here and I hope everyone else rejects this clear badgehunt. This doesn’t even format its self as a SC resolution. Who let this come to the floor?

Basically one can ride on the bandwagon (like with this one by saying "communism bad") and get enough delegates to jump on that bandwagon to approve any resolution regardless of quality.

Aren't condemnations supposed to be for well-done IC "evil" acts? Not the OOC problems addressed in the telegram in question.

New Astri wrote:Aren't condemnations supposed to be for well-done IC "evil" acts? Not the OOC problems addressed in the telegram in question.

If people want to focus on that, then they could look at TCB's in-game activities, not simply by saying that communism is bad and base the entire argument from that.

Tsaivao wrote:Well, I think it's safe to say that this proposal is all over and done with. Anyone wanna actually write a proper condemnation of the CB?

I'd love to see a properly-written condemnation. I would probably vote for it.

As the writers of this proposal, and it failing this badly, we'll take it upon ourselves to write a better resolution. Monk, Kazakh, I, and others in our region can perfect the condemnation, with feedback from others.

Ohpistan wrote:with feedback from others.

GUYS THEY FINALLY GOT THE MESSAGE!!

This is what we've been trying to do since this thing was drafted

Cynetia wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:Who's "they?" TCB?

Yes, I mean the Communist Bloc.

Ironic, seems how we didn't write that

Ohpistan wrote:As the writers of this proposal, and it failing this badly, we'll take it upon ourselves to write a better resolution. Monk, Kazakh, I, and others in our region can perfect the condemnation, with feedback from others.

Seeing Kazakhstan 3's conduct on these forums, I'd strongly urge you to drop him from your writing team if you're serious about writing a condemnation of TCB. The name alone will cause people to be instantly put off by any proposal that he would write or be a part of.

I doubt I'd vote 'for' a condemnation of the TCB, however, if it were properly written I would at least treat it seriously.

Attention, whoever got this to public vote,
I disregarded a telegram telling me to change my vote to 'for'.

This is a bit invasive and I'm still holding on.
Much of the Free Nations Region, and more than 12,000 nations,
have voted against the proposal.

Good job changing some's minds, and I have to 'Commend for Effort', but
it's not gonna go so well with some.

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:Galantius 3 you are clearly a
Communist in disguise. If you don’t support my bill you support communism. Just like you said their are only two options. Either you are a communist or a buffoon. My proposal is perfect.

I don't support communism, and I've voted against this bill, not on ideological grounds,
but because it's vague, poorly written, and it's likely it won't pass due to this.

I am not a communist,
I am aligned to the middle centre-left politically,
but I still don't support this bill, because its terms
are vague and the bill is poorly constructed.

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:Galantius 3 you are clearly a
Communist in disguise. If you don’t support my bill you support communism. Just like you said their are only two options. Either you are a communist or a buffoon. My proposal is perfect.

I don't support communism, and I've voted against this bill, not on ideological grounds,
but because it's vague, poorly written, and it's likely it won't pass due to this.

I am not a communist,
I am aligned to the middle centre-left politically,
but I still don't support this bill, because its terms
are vague and the bill is poorly constructed.

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:Galantius 3 you are clearly a
Communist in disguise. If you don’t support my bill you support communism. Just like you said their are only two options. Either you are a communist or a buffoon. My proposal is perfect.

No it doesn't. Also ur proposal isn't perfect it all.

Ophistan, as has been stated before, you are much better off not including kazhakstan in your draft. That's just my advice, but based on what I know about your region's background, if the resolution comes from a single one of you or your region mates who were there for the founding, I will be voting against.

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:Galantius 3 you are clearly a
Communist in disguise. If you don’t support my bill you support communism. Just like you said their are only two options. Either you are a communist or a buffoon. My proposal is perfect.

Stop using a political ideology you don't like as an insult. I don't go around calling people I don't like 'Lassez-Fairests'.

dammit who let donald trump on nationstates?
"i won this in a landslide" "my proposal will pass without any evidence" "i expect full respect and support for my ideas but i will go off on anyone who disagrees with me"