NATION

PASSWORD

Would this be legal?

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.
User avatar
Mahaj
Senator
 
Posts: 4110
Founded: Dec 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Would this be legal?

Postby Mahaj » Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:07 pm

A simple question. Would the following proposal be legal under Rule IV? (If i inadvertantly violate another rule in this mock draft i'm presenting here, you can let me know, but that isn't the main focus).

Let us take a nation AABBCC


The Security Council,

RECOGNIZING that at times leaders of nations gather together to engage in the playing of board games, and that this practice is known as 'gameplaying',

AWARE that in this gameplaying, there are two major sides, the side known as the 'invaders', which try and take the property of other people, and 'defenders', which try and defend the property of other people, people being of course the leaders playing the game and property the holdings in the game,

ACKNOWLEDGING AABBCC to be a renowned defender in this gameplaying,

AWARE that AABBCC has created a defender organization named XYZ in the game

AWARE that AABBCC has recorded over 1000 successful defensive operations in the game,

HEREBY COMMENDS AABBCC for their skill at defending in gameplaying.



Would this be legal?
Aal Izz Well: UDL
<Koth> I'm still going by the assumption that Mahaj is Unibot's kid brother or something
Kandarin(Naivetry): You're going to have a great NS career ahead of you if you want it, Mahaj. :)
<@Eluvatar> Why is SkyDip such a purist raiderist
<+frattastan> Because his region was never raided.
<+maxbarry> EarthAway: I guess I might dabble in raiding just to experience it better, but I would not like to raid regions of natives, so I'd probably be more interested in defense and liberations

User avatar
Sedgistan
Site Director
 
Posts: 35509
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:11 pm

No, but you can drop the references to board games and gameplaying, and work it into a legal proposal, without too much hassle.

User avatar
Mahaj
Senator
 
Posts: 4110
Founded: Dec 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Mahaj » Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:12 pm

Sedgistan wrote:No, but you can drop the references to board games and gameplaying, and work it into a legal proposal, without too much hassle.

I understand that.

I don't actually have someone I want to commend based on this type of stuff, but i've had this question rolling in my mind and finally posted it.

Since it doesn't reference the site as a game or anything, shouldn't it be alright? Because the board games and stuff would all be IC stuff...
Aal Izz Well: UDL
<Koth> I'm still going by the assumption that Mahaj is Unibot's kid brother or something
Kandarin(Naivetry): You're going to have a great NS career ahead of you if you want it, Mahaj. :)
<@Eluvatar> Why is SkyDip such a purist raiderist
<+frattastan> Because his region was never raided.
<+maxbarry> EarthAway: I guess I might dabble in raiding just to experience it better, but I would not like to raid regions of natives, so I'd probably be more interested in defense and liberations

User avatar
Sedgistan
Site Director
 
Posts: 35509
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:18 pm

See the previous ruling about 'delusions' not being a way to sneak Rule 4 violations into proposals. Same principles apply here - otherwise we'll have a proposal starting:

Noting that Sedgistan is led by Sedge, an individual who spends his time playing an online nation simulation game called NationStates,

Aware that within this game... <insert multitudinous Rule 4 violations here>


Return to Security Council

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: The Ambis

Advertisement

Remove ads