NationStates

The Security Council,

Understanding that Kazakhstan 3, A Fellow World Assembly (WA) Delegate has Created an Resolution against the The Communist Bloc, an Region of 1,010 Communist Nations to Destroy it's Ideological Image and it has Nothing to do with their Communist Ideology to Fulfil their Repression of Communists.

Actions the Security Council, Hereby Condemns Kazakhstan 3

PROPOSAL ABANDONED.

NOTE: This is a Edited and Re-Submitted Version my Rejected/Illegal Proposal to make it Simple.

Truth be told, the joke already ran its course when the target of your condemnation submitted his "proposal"

Why give this clown more attention?

Oh, no no no no pleeeeeeeease no.

Seriously, though - not condemnable and I’d rather not give this guy any more attention.

Pls don't give him attention.

If you don't like it, move on. It is up in your Opinion.

Indo States wrote:If you don't like it, move on. It is up in your Opinion.

We can argue against your proposal.

A very poor attempt at writing a proposal, barely literate and with zero understanding of how the SC works.

Will sink without trace.

Indo States wrote:If you don't like it, move on. It is up in your Opinion.

By the way sunshine, there is no thread ownership in the SC forum. You don’t get to tell others to move on. If you can’t take the heat etc., etc.

Comfed wrote:

Indo States wrote:If you don't like it, move on. It is up in your Opinion.

We can argue against your proposal.

That's right, I am Calling the WA now to Call this Submitted Proposal a Illegal Proposal and to be clear, I Would use Daarwyth's Draft for "Condemn Kazakhstan 3" .

Indo States wrote:

Comfed wrote:We can argue against your proposal.

That's right, I am Calling the WA now to Call this Submitted Proposal a Illegal Proposal and to be clear, I Would use Daarwyth's Draft for "Condemn Kazakhstan 3" .

And using somebody else’s proposal is called plagiarism and is against the rules. Could lose you your WA membership.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:

Indo States wrote:
That's right, I am Calling the WA now to Call this Submitted Proposal a Illegal Proposal and to be clear, I Would use Daarwyth's Draft for "Condemn Kazakhstan 3" .

And using somebody else’s proposal is called plagiarism and against the rules. Could lose you your WA membership.

Right, I would wait for this to see what will happen, Idk if Everyone would Vote against me or Leftists might only save me. I am a Social Democratic, Remember.

Indo States wrote:If you don't like it, move on. It is up in your Opinion.

Bruh you're just like the guy you're trying to condemn...

whyyyyyyyyyy

Indo States wrote:

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:And using somebody else’s proposal is called plagiarism and against the rules. Could lose you your WA membership.

Righ, I would wait for this to see what will happen, Idk if Everyone would Vote against me or Leftists might only save me. I am a Social Democratic, Remember.

Whatever. All I’m concerned about is the quality of a proposal and yours scores a big fat zero in that department.

as ive stated in queue: nah i wont vote on a proposal built on a petty feud with someone who's clearly enjoying all the attention it gives them. as funny as it may be (the first time now it's just annoying) while i agree kazakhstan's proposal is lazy and just overall a bad proposal you're making this whole thing to be bigger than it actually is. just move on ffs

shut up about kazakhstan

I recommend you don't give them any more attention and engaging in such tit-for-tat battles isn't necessary either.

This proposal only serves to waste the Security Council's time.

Full support.

Indo States wrote:Understanding that Kazakhstan 3, A Fellow World Assembly (WA) Delegate has Created an Resolution against the The Communist Bloc, an Region of 1,010 Communist Nations to Destroy it's Ideological Image and it has Nothing to do with their Communist Ideology to Fulfil their Repression of Communists.

I'll acknowledge that I'm splitting hairs here, but the red section kind of implies that the proposal is either being addressed to or written from the perspective of WA Delegates specifically (as opposed to WA members or the WA/SC in general), which would violate Rule 1A. Additionally, I asked a similar question in a different thread but never received an answer: Do the new rules have an equivalent to the old tit-for-tat rule?

Regardless, in addition to the awkward phrasing and inconsistent capitalization, this proposal is riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes.

Edit: Ah, never mind, it was right under my nose the whole time and doesn't apply.

See this proposal? This is exactly why we should have kept the tit fir tat rule. Ridiculous.

This proposal is completely absurd. How could anyone consider this garbage pile of lies a proposal. Take down this proposal at once.

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:This proposal is completely absurd. How could anyone consider this garbage pile of lies a proposal. Take down this proposal at once.

Where have I heard this exact statement, but with different wording? Can't put my finger on it.

I believe I've already said it, but I do not support this.

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:This proposal is completely absurd. How could anyone consider this garbage pile of lies a proposal. Take down this proposal at once.

Yet you think your terrible proposal is the best ever.

Outer Sparta wrote:

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:This proposal is completely absurd. How could anyone consider this garbage pile of lies a proposal. Take down this proposal at once.

Yet you think your terrible proposal is the best ever.

Him and his cronies smh

Jedinsto wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:Yet you think your terrible proposal is the best ever.

Him and his cronies smh

By cronies I think you mean caring individuals who silently support the cause.

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:Him and his cronies smh

By cronies I think you mean caring individuals who silently support the cause.

I think by "silently," you mean "obnoxiously loudly." I was referring to the forums.