Advertisement
by Angeloid Astraea » Sat Sep 23, 2023 7:38 am
by Improper Classifications » Sat Sep 23, 2023 7:40 am
by Ostrovskiy » Sat Sep 23, 2023 7:44 am
by Honeydewistania » Sat Sep 23, 2023 7:46 am
Ostrovskiy wrote:Jesus fucking Christ. Not only did ya'll attempt to gatekeep 0cala out of the SC by writing a random competing proposal, but now that hers has gone to vote first you stomp against it because you just can't stand her enough, even if it means having the fascists hold Alterante for 4 more days? This is a mockery of the Security Council and proof forevermore to everyone that the community here is exactly as toxic, gatekeepy, and hostile to new authors as some say it is. Extremely disappointed in all the defender delegates voting against (cue "nobody cares").
Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass
by The Philippine Islands Union » Sat Sep 23, 2023 7:47 am
by Ostrovskiy » Sat Sep 23, 2023 7:48 am
by Picairn » Sat Sep 23, 2023 7:50 am
by Astrobolt » Sat Sep 23, 2023 7:55 am
Ostrovskiy wrote:Jesus fucking Christ. Not only did ya'll attempt to gatekeep 0cala out of the SC by writing a random competing proposal, but now that hers has gone to vote first you stomp against it because you just can't stand her enough, even if it means having the fascists hold Alterante for 4 more days? This is a mockery of the Security Council and proof forevermore to everyone that the community here is exactly as toxic, gatekeepy, and hostile to new authors as some say it is. Extremely disappointed in all the defender delegates voting against (cue "nobody cares").
by Angeloid Astraea » Sat Sep 23, 2023 8:20 am
Astrobolt wrote:Ostrovskiy wrote:Jesus fucking Christ. Not only did ya'll attempt to gatekeep 0cala out of the SC by writing a random competing proposal, but now that hers has gone to vote first you stomp against it because you just can't stand her enough, even if it means having the fascists hold Alterante for 4 more days? This is a mockery of the Security Council and proof forevermore to everyone that the community here is exactly as toxic, gatekeepy, and hostile to new authors as some say it is. Extremely disappointed in all the defender delegates voting against (cue "nobody cares").
Acting like somehow giving four more days is going to embolden fascism is inaccurate. Anti-fascism is not an excuse to throw any standards we have out the window. I’d argue in fact its even more important to get things right.
by Experina » Sat Sep 23, 2023 9:59 am
by Bloksor » Sat Sep 23, 2023 10:40 am
by Liberza » Sat Sep 23, 2023 11:36 am
Bloksor wrote:are y'all just bandwagoning against this proposal or something? like, aren't these the same raiders who took control of Portugal De Esquerda? if so, then we should be voting FOR the proposal.
i don't see a SINGLE reason against liberating the region other than "lets pile up against it just because!!11". bruh
by Liberza » Sat Sep 23, 2023 11:57 am
by Namwenia » Sat Sep 23, 2023 12:30 pm
by Halsoni » Sat Sep 23, 2023 12:33 pm
Lavender wrote:My only regret is that Ruben was unleashed onto NSGP
OT wrote:Ruben for TNP Delegate
Vara wrote:“Terminally online” you’re terminally inept
Vara wrote:Very responsible of you. Very demure. Very mindful.
Vara wrote:I think you're pretty ok
by Second Sovereignty » Sat Sep 23, 2023 1:23 pm
Halsoni wrote:It's not about gatekeeping. It's about whether or not the author's conduct should be taken into account on a vote.
by Liberza » Sat Sep 23, 2023 1:28 pm
Second Sovereignty wrote:Halsoni wrote:It's not about gatekeeping. It's about whether or not the author's conduct should be taken into account on a vote.
Are we really going to stoop to the level of voting against perfectly serviceable anti-fascist proposals simply because of a petty dislike of the author? Half the resolutions in the history of the GA and the SC would never have passed if we held to this standard. This is petty spite, nothing more. Do not insult us by pretending there's some high-minded principle behind this.
by Halsoni » Sat Sep 23, 2023 1:51 pm
Second Sovereignty wrote:Halsoni wrote:It's not about gatekeeping. It's about whether or not the author's conduct should be taken into account on a vote.
Are we really going to stoop to the level of voting against perfectly serviceable anti-fascist proposals simply because of a petty dislike of the author? Half the resolutions in the history of the GA and the SC would never have passed if we held to this standard. This is petty spite, nothing more. Do not insult us by pretending there's some high-minded principle behind this.
Lavender wrote:My only regret is that Ruben was unleashed onto NSGP
OT wrote:Ruben for TNP Delegate
Vara wrote:“Terminally online” you’re terminally inept
Vara wrote:Very responsible of you. Very demure. Very mindful.
Vara wrote:I think you're pretty ok
by Second Sovereignty » Sat Sep 23, 2023 1:54 pm
Halsoni wrote:[...] IIRC it was because she wasn't happy with people disagreeing with her, please correct me if I'm wrong. I've not paid that much attention to the SC recently.
Second Sovereignty wrote:There's a famed political philosopher who has a quote I like to bring up occasionally, [...]; "No investigation, No right to speak."
Halsoni wrote:That being said, this is not about gatekeeping. I don't know where people got that from. It's about the author's behaviour.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement