NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Condemn Mikeswill

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.
User avatar
Schiltzberg
Minister
 
Posts: 2156
Founded: Mar 31, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

[DRAFT] Condemn Mikeswill

Postby Schiltzberg » Thu Dec 15, 2016 4:30 pm

Here is the current draft of my proposal, which is open to changes:
THE SECURITY COUNCIL:

RECOGNIZING Mikeswill as the long-time delegate of the region of NationStates since September of 2004;

APPALLED by the nation of Mikeswill's outspoken and passionate crusade against the establishment of the Security Council, which includes the following:
    1. They have viciously attacked the authority and goodwill of the Security Council, as well the ability of the Security Council to pass legislation in order to liberate, commend, and condemn nations or regions for the sake of creating or maintaining peace.
    2. They have used their delegacy in NationStates as an opportunity to promote anti-Security Council sentiment.
    3. They have declared that "NationStates stands AGAINST the Security Council," thereby transforming such an honorable and storied region into a haven for those who oppose the peacemaking institution of the Security Council.
    4. They led a campaign for the position of Secretary-General of the World Assembly that directly called for the abolition of the Security Council in April of 2016.

EMBARRASSED that the powerful and historic region of NationStates has been swayed into such great opposition of the peacemaking institution of the Security Council as a result of the leadership of the people of Mikeswill in that region;

REAFFIRMING that the Security Council stands as a peacemaking institution that exists for the purpose "spreading interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary;"

HEREBY CONDEMNS Mikeswill.
Last edited by Schiltzberg on Thu Dec 15, 2016 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fan of: Baseball, Impractical Jokers, U2, Luxembourg, Chicago Cubs, Bob Dylan
Former President of the World Baseball Classic
Winners of World Baseball Classics 33, 35, 36, and 37
Proud Author of the World Baseball Classic History Factbook
Author of Poems, Poems II, and Poems III
Roman Catholic
High School Student
Creative Writer
From Chicago, IL, USA
Fan of NationStates and Jennifer Government
SEND ME A TELEGRAM!!!!!!!!!!!!
"The people in my songs are all me."

-- Bob Dylan


Officially NationStates' #1 Dylan Fan

User avatar
Schiltzberg
Minister
 
Posts: 2156
Founded: Mar 31, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Schiltzberg » Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:40 pm

Feedback would be appreciated. Thank you! :)
Fan of: Baseball, Impractical Jokers, U2, Luxembourg, Chicago Cubs, Bob Dylan
Former President of the World Baseball Classic
Winners of World Baseball Classics 33, 35, 36, and 37
Proud Author of the World Baseball Classic History Factbook
Author of Poems, Poems II, and Poems III
Roman Catholic
High School Student
Creative Writer
From Chicago, IL, USA
Fan of NationStates and Jennifer Government
SEND ME A TELEGRAM!!!!!!!!!!!!
"The people in my songs are all me."

-- Bob Dylan


Officially NationStates' #1 Dylan Fan

User avatar
The Stalker
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1050
Founded: Jan 04, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Stalker » Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:04 pm

An interesting idea, not out of the realm of possibility, but the resolution needs more.

Also too much of the wording feels like it incorrectly suggests Mike has swayed or miss lead a large old region, when in reality he built that region up on those principals, he's been there since it's creation, he's lead and recruited for the region forever, that's all his work, truly made in his image.

I would elaborate upon his anti-security council stance in some way, maybe make it about the region itself rather than Mike, hard to say.
The Mad King of Hell
I am the "who" when you call, "Who's there?"
Hell's Bells: Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.
This isn't Wall Street, this is Hell. We have a little something called integrity.

User avatar
The Marsupial Illuminati
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 741
Founded: Jul 24, 2016
Moralistic Democracy

Postby The Marsupial Illuminati » Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:57 am

This condemnation makes perfect sense IC; Mikeswill and his region's stance against the SC is well-known. However, I don't see any OOC reason to sincerely condemn Mikeswill. (Unless this is one of those reward condemnations, in which players are awarded for excellently playing the villain, either through RP or raiding.)

You can look at the reasons why "Commend Mikeswill" was repealed for inspiration, however much of the points in that repeal are irrelevant and/or uncontroversial today, such as "invader ties" and the contention that Mikeswill has "never been democratically elected."
Last edited by The Marsupial Illuminati on Sat Dec 17, 2016 5:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Schiltzberg
Minister
 
Posts: 2156
Founded: Mar 31, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Schiltzberg » Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:35 am

The Stalker wrote:An interesting idea, not out of the realm of possibility, but the resolution needs more.

Also too much of the wording feels like it incorrectly suggests Mike has swayed or miss lead a large old region, when in reality he built that region up on those principals, he's been there since it's creation, he's lead and recruited for the region forever, that's all his work, truly made in his image.

I would elaborate upon his anti-security council stance in some way, maybe make it about the region itself rather than Mike, hard to say.

What would you recommend that I add? Also, it is true that Mike has been with NationStates all along, but the Security Council did not exist until that region had existed for over 5 years, so it was not founded on that principle of anti-Security Councilism, and he did have to sway the region in that direction when he chose to adopt that principle himself.
The Marsupial Illuminati wrote:This condemnation makes perfect sense IC; Mikeswill and his region's stance against the SC is well-known. However, I don't see any OOC reason to sincerely condemn Mikeswill. (Unless this is one of those reward condemnations, in which players are awarded for excellently playing the villain, either through RP or raiding.)

You can look at the reasons why "Condemn Mikeswill" was repealed for inspiration, however much of the points in that repeal are irrelevant and/or uncontroversial today, such as "invader ties" and the contention that Mikeswill has "never been democratically elected."

I feel that this nation's IC dedication to the destruction of the Security Council is enough to justify a condemnation. This was not meant to be a reward resolution, but I guess it could be interpreted that way. If Mike stays true to his stance on condemnation proposals, then he will not want it to pass either, since he believes that such proposals are "popularity contests." Who knows how he would react to this proposal, since there was some controversy to the way he reacted to his commendation proposal back in the day. Thank you for linking me to that repeal, because I find this helpful. :)
Fan of: Baseball, Impractical Jokers, U2, Luxembourg, Chicago Cubs, Bob Dylan
Former President of the World Baseball Classic
Winners of World Baseball Classics 33, 35, 36, and 37
Proud Author of the World Baseball Classic History Factbook
Author of Poems, Poems II, and Poems III
Roman Catholic
High School Student
Creative Writer
From Chicago, IL, USA
Fan of NationStates and Jennifer Government
SEND ME A TELEGRAM!!!!!!!!!!!!
"The people in my songs are all me."

-- Bob Dylan


Officially NationStates' #1 Dylan Fan

User avatar
Mikeswill
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 169
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Mikeswill » Sat Dec 17, 2016 11:17 am

Against Security Council Statement

World Factbook Entry: Welcome to "NationStates", aiming to become one of the strongest ranking regions. Pro-Economy, Pro-Society, Pro-WA, Pro-Peace; Join our glory! Above all freedom for all nations to control their own destinies in a region free from war.
For over eight years our Region has supported the WA (UN) as an essential community of Peace and International Society. Although, at times, We differ greatly with the World Assembly, We, as a Region, continue to believe in essence of this establishment. Relative to The Security Council We stand AGAINST this body for the following Reasons:

LIBERATION PROPOSALS:
The bottom line is that when Defenders lose in the field of battle they result to cowardice and change the rules of play. I have kept my Region Raider free for 12+ years by keen vigilance to the Game Play throughout the JenGuv World. This has included Puppets and Spies and infiltration of Regions. Such is the way of the Rules which I accepted when I created my Nation on October 28, 2003. If a Region cannot defend itself, too bad! The leadership should have been responsible. These SC Resolutions tilt the balance to Elitist who determine what is a Raid and what is Liberation by manipulating the Rules. It is like playing with a brat who takes away the toys when the outcome goes against his bias. The only security I have in my Region aside from Endorsements is the RIGHT as Delegate to Password my Region against any threat. If this RIGHT is at the whim of the SC then have the game makers remove all password abilities across the board thereby removing this continued farce of hypocrisy.

COMMEND / CONDEMN PROPOSALS:
These Condemn & Commend Resolutions are mostly a popularity contest and a waste of the World Assembly’s time. It is not the Business of the World Assembly to Honour Nations. The WA is not a Beauty Contest. We would ignore these Resolutions were it not for the ridiculous precedent these Resolutions present.

As such we petitioned the Moderators and were successful in the creation of the TAG: Anti-Security Council.

The Mikes Hope Essence of Mikeswill
WA Delegate
NationStates Region
Love Conquers Fear
NationStates

User avatar
Mikeswill
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 169
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Mikeswill » Sat Dec 17, 2016 11:21 am

The Security Council and it's members will never understand the travesty and danger of its Liberation provisions. I will vote against every Resolution and for every Repeal. What you do is Ego gratifying but moot.

I thank the above commentary for understanding the difficulty of protecting and invigorating a Founderless Region of the Game's Namesake all these years.

Kisses

Mikeswill
Love Conquers Fear
NationStates

User avatar
We Are Not the NSA
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1540
Founded: Nov 25, 2013
Father Knows Best State

Postby We Are Not the NSA » Sat Dec 17, 2016 11:47 am

Schiltzberg wrote:THE SECURITY COUNCIL:

RECOGNIZING Mikeswill as the long-time delegate of the region of NationStates since September of 2004;

APPALLED by the nation of Mikeswill's outspoken and passionate crusade against the establishment of the Security Council, which includes the following:

Imo, the concept of having the Security Council condemn someone for making mostly legitimate criticisms of the Security Council is laughable.
1. They have viciously attacked the authority and goodwill of the Security Council, as well the ability of the Security Council to pass legislation in order to liberate, commend, and condemn nations or regions for the sake of creating or maintaining peace.

I see no reason to 'punish' Mikeswill like this simply for having an opinion that differs from that of most SC members.
2. They have used their delegacy in NationStates as an opportunity to promote anti-Security Council sentiment.

This is literally just using someone's voting habits as a basis for a condemnation. Mikeswill is the legally elected delegate of NationStates, and as such he has the right to vote however we wishes to. The WA does not possess the authority, IC or OOC, to dictate how a delegate should vote.
3. They have declared that "NationStates stands AGAINST the Security Council," thereby transforming such an honorable and storied region into a haven for those who oppose the peacemaking institution of the Security Council.

Again, if he was elected and no one from NationStates objects to it, the SC has no right to condemn Mike's opinion.
4. They led a campaign for the position of Secretary-General of the World Assembly that directly called for the abolition of the Security Council in April of 2016.

So, we're not even trying to pretend we aren't being authoritarian anymore? This clause is using the lawful use of the democratic process as the basis of a condemnation. The fact that he did so well in said election proves that he is not alone in his opinions.
EMBARRASSED that the powerful and historic region of NationStates has been swayed into such great opposition of the peacemaking institution of the Security Council as a result of the leadership of the people of Mikeswill's leadership in that region;

REAFFIRMING that the Security Council stands as a peacemaking institution that exists for the purpose "spreading interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary;"

Except for every time it has been used to meddle in regional affairs that it had no right to be involved in, or when its Liberation function gets used as a weapon against the rightful owners of a region.
ΩHydra Command Deputy DirectorΩ
Security CouncilNatives Please ReadTWP Raid

Interested in Raiding? Join HYDRA Command Today!

User avatar
Alkasia
Envoy
 
Posts: 278
Founded: Sep 24, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Alkasia » Sat Dec 17, 2016 11:59 am

We Are Not the NSA wrote:
Schiltzberg wrote:THE SECURITY COUNCIL:

RECOGNIZING Mikeswill as the long-time delegate of the region of NationStates since September of 2004;

APPALLED by the nation of Mikeswill's outspoken and passionate crusade against the establishment of the Security Council, which includes the following:

Imo, the concept of having the Security Council condemn someone for making mostly legitimate criticisms of the Security Council is laughable.
1. They have viciously attacked the authority and goodwill of the Security Council, as well the ability of the Security Council to pass legislation in order to liberate, commend, and condemn nations or regions for the sake of creating or maintaining peace.

I see no reason to 'punish' Mikeswill like this simply for having an opinion that differs from that of most SC members.
2. They have used their delegacy in NationStates as an opportunity to promote anti-Security Council sentiment.

This is literally just using someone's voting habits as a basis for a condemnation. Mikeswill is the legally elected delegate of NationStates, and as such he has the right to vote however we wishes to. The WA does not possess the authority, IC or OOC, to dictate how a delegate should vote.
3. They have declared that "NationStates stands AGAINST the Security Council," thereby transforming such an honorable and storied region into a haven for those who oppose the peacemaking institution of the Security Council.

Again, if he was elected and no one from NationStates objects to it, the SC has no right to condemn Mike's opinion.
4. They led a campaign for the position of Secretary-General of the World Assembly that directly called for the abolition of the Security Council in April of 2016.

So, we're not even trying to pretend we aren't being authoritarian anymore? This clause is using the lawful use of the democratic process as the basis of a condemnation. The fact that he did so well in said election proves that he is not alone in his opinions.
EMBARRASSED that the powerful and historic region of NationStates has been swayed into such great opposition of the peacemaking institution of the Security Council as a result of the leadership of the people of Mikeswill's leadership in that region;

REAFFIRMING that the Security Council stands as a peacemaking institution that exists for the purpose "spreading interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary;"

Except for every time it has been used to meddle in regional affairs that it had no right to be involved in, or when its Liberation function gets used as a weapon against the rightful owners of a region.


Agreed on every count. Mikeswill's views are a matter of opinion and being that NationStates is his region, he has the right to establish those views as part of his region.
This condemnation attempt has no foundation. Condemning someone for having a different opinion is absurd. Mikeswill has done nothing to deserve this.
Former Delegate of XKI, current Reject with a penchant for murder.
Defender Romeo
Social Democrat/Left Libertarian
Koth wrote:Alk resembles some sort of slime mold that asexually reproduces scum, as is standard for XKI natives
Cormactopia Prime wrote:You're silly. I miss the XKI veterans who knew how to appropriately deal with raiders.
Kanglia wrote:Can confirm lynching Alk is the most satisfying thing. :p
Sarakart wrote:What a time to be alive. Welcome to the legislative revolution, the liberation wars have begun.

In reference to XKI's Embassy thread:
Benevolent Thomas wrote:"Something you thought you'd never see for $3000, Alex."

User avatar
Sygian II
Diplomat
 
Posts: 534
Founded: Jun 14, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Sygian II » Sat Dec 17, 2016 4:12 pm

Oh, the irony in this proposal.
Benevolent Thomas wrote:The Black Hawks continue to be the largest and most successful invader organization in NationStates


Maj. Sygian

Council Advisor of The Black Hawks

User avatar
The Laurentian Federation
Attaché
 
Posts: 85
Founded: Aug 28, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby The Laurentian Federation » Sat Dec 17, 2016 4:24 pm

Alkasia wrote:
We Are Not the NSA wrote:
Imo, the concept of having the Security Council condemn someone for making mostly legitimate criticisms of the Security Council is laughable.

I see no reason to 'punish' Mikeswill like this simply for having an opinion that differs from that of most SC members. :clap:

This is literally just using someone's voting habits as a basis for a condemnation. Mikeswill is the legally elected delegate of NationStates, and as such he has the right to vote however we wishes to. The WA does not possess the authority, IC or OOC, to dictate how a delegate should vote.

Again, if he was elected and no one from NationStates objects to it, the SC has no right to condemn Mike's opinion.

So, we're not even trying to pretend we aren't being authoritarian anymore? This clause is using the lawful use of the democratic process as the basis of a condemnation. The fact that he did so well in said election proves that he is not alone in his opinions.

Except for every time it has been used to meddle in regional affairs that it had no right to be involved in, or when its Liberation function gets used as a weapon against the rightful owners of a region.


Agreed on every count. Mikeswill's views are a matter of opinion and being that NationStates is his region, he has the right to establish those views as part of his region.
This condemnation attempt has no foundation. Condemning someone for having a different opinion is absurd. Mikeswill has done nothing to deserve this.



:clap: :clap:

User avatar
Mikeswill
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 169
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Mikeswill » Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:32 pm

Sygian II wrote:Oh, the irony in this proposal.



Right?
Love Conquers Fear
NationStates

User avatar
Schiltzberg
Minister
 
Posts: 2156
Founded: Mar 31, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Schiltzberg » Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:04 pm

Alkasia wrote:
We Are Not the NSA wrote:
Imo, the concept of having the Security Council condemn someone for making mostly legitimate criticisms of the Security Council is laughable.

I see no reason to 'punish' Mikeswill like this simply for having an opinion that differs from that of most SC members.

This is literally just using someone's voting habits as a basis for a condemnation. Mikeswill is the legally elected delegate of NationStates, and as such he has the right to vote however we wishes to. The WA does not possess the authority, IC or OOC, to dictate how a delegate should vote.

Again, if he was elected and no one from NationStates objects to it, the SC has no right to condemn Mike's opinion.

So, we're not even trying to pretend we aren't being authoritarian anymore? This clause is using the lawful use of the democratic process as the basis of a condemnation. The fact that he did so well in said election proves that he is not alone in his opinions.

Except for every time it has been used to meddle in regional affairs that it had no right to be involved in, or when its Liberation function gets used as a weapon against the rightful owners of a region.


Agreed on every count. Mikeswill's views are a matter of opinion and being that NationStates is his region, he has the right to establish those views as part of his region.
This condemnation attempt has no foundation. Condemning someone for having a different opinion is absurd. Mikeswill has done nothing to deserve this.

But Mikeswill is indiscriminately against liberation proposals, even in situations when they are necessary to maintain peace to the natives of a region, and this is disruptive to peace, which is worthy of condemnation.
Fan of: Baseball, Impractical Jokers, U2, Luxembourg, Chicago Cubs, Bob Dylan
Former President of the World Baseball Classic
Winners of World Baseball Classics 33, 35, 36, and 37
Proud Author of the World Baseball Classic History Factbook
Author of Poems, Poems II, and Poems III
Roman Catholic
High School Student
Creative Writer
From Chicago, IL, USA
Fan of NationStates and Jennifer Government
SEND ME A TELEGRAM!!!!!!!!!!!!
"The people in my songs are all me."

-- Bob Dylan


Officially NationStates' #1 Dylan Fan

User avatar
Sygian II
Diplomat
 
Posts: 534
Founded: Jun 14, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Sygian II » Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:04 am

Mikeswill wrote:
Sygian II wrote:Oh, the irony in this proposal.



Right?

It is amusing. :P
Benevolent Thomas wrote:The Black Hawks continue to be the largest and most successful invader organization in NationStates


Maj. Sygian

Council Advisor of The Black Hawks

User avatar
Mikeswill
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 169
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Mikeswill » Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:48 pm

Schiltzberg wrote:But Mikeswill is indiscriminately against liberation proposals, even in situations when they are necessary to maintain peace to the natives of a region, and this is disruptive to peace, which is worthy of condemnation.




indiscriminately: not discriminating; lacking in care, judgment, selectivity; haphazard; thoughtless:

discriminate: to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately; to make or constitute a distinction in or between; differentiate




Trust me, I am discriminately against liberation proposals.
Love Conquers Fear
NationStates

User avatar
Brunhizzle
Envoy
 
Posts: 243
Founded: Jan 07, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Brunhizzle » Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:52 pm

Schiltzberg wrote:But Mikeswill is indiscriminately against liberation proposals, even in situations when they are necessary to maintain peace to the natives of a region, and this is disruptive to peace, which is worthy of condemnation.


The only thing in this thread that's worthy of a condemnation is the draft itself for wasting our time.

Unless Mikeswill starts sending glitter bombs to the house of every Security Council author while unsulting our mothers, there is absolutely no reason that his opposition of this body should get him a condemnation.
Brunhilde

"I have three children and if I can raise just one of them to be more like Brunhilde and less like Sygian I'll consider myself a successful parent."
-Scardino

User avatar
States of Glory
Diplomat
 
Posts: 589
Founded: Jul 28, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby States of Glory » Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:56 pm

Brunhizzle wrote:The only thing in this thread that's worthy of a condemnation is the draft itself for wasting our time.

You do realise that someone is probably going to try this now, right?
#KanyeForPresident2K20
Make America Great Britain Again!
TWP's Minister for WA Affairs

User avatar
Mikeswill
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 169
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Mikeswill » Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:40 pm

Now I Remember


Schiltzberg

I banned this Nation some time ago. I guess this is the best they got in retaliation.

The irony...
Love Conquers Fear
NationStates

User avatar
Solorni
Minister
 
Posts: 3024
Founded: Sep 04, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Solorni » Mon Dec 19, 2016 7:38 am

Unless Mikeswill wants it, I will be against this.
Lovely Queen of Balder
Proud Delegate of WALL

Lucky Number 13

User avatar
Rovikstead
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 428
Founded: Dec 05, 2016
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Rovikstead » Mon Dec 19, 2016 8:16 am

Calling out the security council for their obvious flaws is not anything relatively close to treason. Mikeswill is bringing up valid points on the faults of this system. For example, as he said in this thread, commendations or condemnations are no more than a popularity battle. You can be a well spoken, actively participating WA Delegate, and not gain any recognition, while someone with connections to strong groups can get commended for doing only a portion of what others have done.

He has every right to publically express his views on the Security Council. To condemn him is to condemn the freedom of speech and expression.
The Glorious Third Reign of Templedom wrote:** RED FLAG ** . ** RING CHURCH BELLS ** . ** BESTIALITY ALERT ** . ** CHRISTIANS TAKE COVER **

User avatar
Alkasia
Envoy
 
Posts: 278
Founded: Sep 24, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Alkasia » Mon Dec 19, 2016 6:24 pm

Mikeswill wrote:Now I Remember


Schiltzberg

I banned this Nation some time ago. I guess this is the best they got in retaliation.

The irony...

A failed attempt at that, so it would seem.
Former Delegate of XKI, current Reject with a penchant for murder.
Defender Romeo
Social Democrat/Left Libertarian
Koth wrote:Alk resembles some sort of slime mold that asexually reproduces scum, as is standard for XKI natives
Cormactopia Prime wrote:You're silly. I miss the XKI veterans who knew how to appropriately deal with raiders.
Kanglia wrote:Can confirm lynching Alk is the most satisfying thing. :p
Sarakart wrote:What a time to be alive. Welcome to the legislative revolution, the liberation wars have begun.

In reference to XKI's Embassy thread:
Benevolent Thomas wrote:"Something you thought you'd never see for $3000, Alex."

User avatar
Escape from Trump
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Nov 11, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Escape from Trump » Mon Dec 19, 2016 6:28 pm

I don't think you can condemn someone for disagreeing with you.
If Trump wasn't a business man, he'd become a graffiti artist.

User avatar
Brunhizzle
Envoy
 
Posts: 243
Founded: Jan 07, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Brunhizzle » Tue Dec 20, 2016 6:37 am

States of Glory wrote:
Brunhizzle wrote:The only thing in this thread that's worthy of a condemnation is the draft itself for wasting our time.

You do realise that someone is probably going to try this now, right?

I look forward to it.
Brunhilde

"I have three children and if I can raise just one of them to be more like Brunhilde and less like Sygian I'll consider myself a successful parent."
-Scardino

User avatar
Schiltzberg
Minister
 
Posts: 2156
Founded: Mar 31, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Schiltzberg » Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:39 am

Look, I realize the irony of this proposal. It is true that Mike banned me from NationStates, but I have no hard feelings, and I have had the idea for this proposal since before I joined that region. That being said, and the irony being addressed, I think that it is a legitimate proposal, and I am wondering if anyone has any suggestions for the content of the proposal itself. If there are no discrepancies about the wording, other than the obvious irony, I will consider submitting my proposal. Feedback would be appreciated.
Fan of: Baseball, Impractical Jokers, U2, Luxembourg, Chicago Cubs, Bob Dylan
Former President of the World Baseball Classic
Winners of World Baseball Classics 33, 35, 36, and 37
Proud Author of the World Baseball Classic History Factbook
Author of Poems, Poems II, and Poems III
Roman Catholic
High School Student
Creative Writer
From Chicago, IL, USA
Fan of NationStates and Jennifer Government
SEND ME A TELEGRAM!!!!!!!!!!!!
"The people in my songs are all me."

-- Bob Dylan


Officially NationStates' #1 Dylan Fan

User avatar
Bhang Bhang Duc
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1635
Founded: Dec 17, 2003
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Bhang Bhang Duc » Tue Dec 20, 2016 11:21 am

Schiltzberg wrote:Look, I realize the irony of this proposal. It is true that Mike banned me from NationStates, but I have no hard feelings, and I have had the idea for this proposal since before I joined that region. That being said, and the irony being addressed, I think that it is a legitimate proposal, and I am wondering if anyone has any suggestions for the content of the proposal itself. If there are no discrepancies about the wording, other than the obvious irony, I will consider submitting my proposal. Feedback would be appreciated.

Please don't embarrass yourself by submitting this poor excuse for a proposal.
Former Delegate and Guardian of The West Pacific. TWP's Former Minister for World Assembly Affairs

The West Pacific's Official Welshman, Astronomer and Old Fart

Pierconium wrote:I see Funk as an opportunistic manipulator that utilises the means available to him to reach his goals. In other words, a nation after my own heart.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Security Council

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Maowi, Mexiteco, New Birds, Paffnia, Vidor

Advertisement

Remove ads