NationStates

Attack Helicopter wrote:

Comfed wrote:a) That would be illegal under their laws - they'd have to get approval from their assembly first which would take days.
b) You can just like... password the region and leave your puppet there
c) Why would they refound?

1. They would probably ignore the assembly and refound anyway.
2. I allow open borders.
3. Because they're (ICly) imperialist.

1. Why would they do that? It would be a huge deal if that happened, and honestly, that's not worth it with you.
2. You contradict your own goals with your own, self-made useless policies.
3. And what makes you think, if any raid, they would raid it due to IC things? Also, TNP is not IC Imperialist btw. Where did you get that from?

Comfed wrote:

Attack Helicopter wrote:
1. They would probably ignore the assembly and refound anyway.
2. I allow open borders.
3. Because they're (ICly) imperialist.

1. They wouldn't disregard their own laws to refound your tiny region.
2. Okay then.
3.They are not (and never have been).

1. They will. Everybody does.
2 (downgrading 3). They (secretly) are.

Attack Helicopter wrote:

Comfed wrote:1. They wouldn't disregard their own laws to refound your tiny region.
2. Okay then.
3.They are not (and never have been).

1. They will. Everybody does.
2 (downgrading 3). They (secretly) are.

None of this is even remotely related the non-existent proposal here....

Attack Helicopter wrote:

Comfed wrote:1. They wouldn't disregard their own laws to refound your tiny region.
2. Okay then.
3.They are not (and never have been).

1. They will. Everybody does.
2 (downgrading 3). They (secretly) are.

1. They would absolutely not do such a thing for an ego-thirsty nation who thinks people will do whatever they think they'll do...
2. They (not secretly) are not. Stop making up your own prophecies just to try to prove a lost point.

Fachumonn wrote:

Attack Helicopter wrote:
1. They will. Everybody does.
2 (downgrading 3). They (secretly) are.

1. They would absolutely not do such a thing for an ego-thirsty nation who thinks people will do whatever they think they'll do...
2. They (not secretly) are not. Stop making up your own prophecies just to try to prove a lost point.

1. Not true.
2. So I'm a prophet now?

Attack Helicopter wrote:

Fachumonn wrote:1. They would absolutely not do such a thing for an ego-thirsty nation who thinks people will do whatever they think they'll do...
2. They (not secretly) are not. Stop making up your own prophecies just to try to prove a lost point.

1. Not true.
2. So I'm a prophet now?

Not on topic, so I won't go on about how ridiculous these responses are...

Against unless natives consent to it.

You've been told by multiple experienced people so far that this would not pass. In my experience, forum feedback tends to match the general reasons for why people vote for/against something when it is at vote. Therefore, based on the overwhelming lack of support your proposal has, it is extremely likely it will fail. I would suggest exploring other potential proposals (don't ask me i have no ideas, but there is an SC ideas thread if you can't think of anything), as you're simply wasting your time here.

These forums can be vicious sometimes, but in general the advice given is solid (esp. when repeated by multiple people) and should be taken under advisement.

Zukchiva wrote:Against unless natives consent to it.

You've been told by multiple experienced people so far that this would not pass. In my experience, forum feedback tends to match the general reasons for why people vote for/against something when it is at vote. Therefore, based on the overwhelming lack of support your proposal has, it is extremely likely it will fail. I would suggest exploring other potential proposals (don't ask me i have no ideas, but there is an SC ideas thread if you can't think of anything), as you're simply wasting your time here.

These forums can be vicious sometimes, but in general the advice given is solid (esp. when repeated by multiple people) and should be taken under advisement.

Nice try. Convincing me to abandon this won't work.

Against due to lack of native consent.

United Calanworie wrote:Against due to lack of native consent.

Like I said before, the natives have nothing to do with this.

Attack Helicopter wrote:

United Calanworie wrote:Against due to lack of native consent.

Like I said before, the natives have nothing to do with this.

They do. I recognize that you're going to proceed with this regardless of their consent, but they are the reason this hasn't already been repealed.

Can we all just walk away from this now? The author clearly isn't going to listen, and our continued posting just gives them attention that they don't deserve.

United Calanworie wrote:

Attack Helicopter wrote:
Like I said before, the natives have nothing to do with this.

They do. I recognize that you're going to proceed with this regardless of their consent, but they are the reason this hasn't already been repealed.

Then I'm going to make me the reason.

Attack Helicopter wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:The 30 second effort put into the repeal was my first clue....

Security Council repeals don't take that long to make. Get used to it.

Refuge Isle wrote:
This will not pass without support from the original pre-refound native community, who have last indicated they wanted this liberation to stay in place. So what do you, who has no connection to the region's invasion, defence, or original native inhabitants (whom you did not even consult), hope to gain here beyond just padding your resume? The fact is that leaving the liberation in place does nothing and repealing it does nothing. You have brought no case to defy the native interest.

Those of us who have worked in the World Assembly for years have some keen insight about how that vote would turn out.

It's not a Security Council rule that natives of a region have the authority declare certain proposals on their region legal or illegal.

Bormiar wrote:1) Everyone seems to be aching for a badge.
2) You've put exactly 5 seconds of work into this draft.
3) The natives don't even want it.

1. I'm playing this game for fun, not for a trophy to put on my shelf.
2. Supposing that my average typing speed would be 30 words per minute, you imply that I wrote 70 words in 5 seconds, when I can only write 2.5 words in 5 seconds. I reccomend you learn math.
3. Good for them.

Lenlyvit wrote:Yeah, that would likely be a whopping 92/94% against vote to stomp it into oblivion...

You're saying you have a TARDIS or any other time traveling machine.

Fachumonn wrote:Who said it couldn't be 95%?

See my above response.

Wayneactia wrote:It would have to make quorum first. Given the effort put into writing it, I seriously doubt a campaign telegram so incredible that it garners enough approvals would be forthcoming....

I'm not Mr. Perfect. Stop daydreaming.

This is hilarious

Pass a real resolution before you start knocking down easier targets. Otherwise, you're just a badge hunter.

Edit: Oh, and I'm a petty bitch. *Recommend. I recommend you learn how to spell x)

Attack Helicopter wrote:

United Calanworie wrote:Against due to lack of native consent.

Like I said before, the natives have nothing to do with this.

"The natives have nothing to do with [a liberation repeal]" might be the most interesting thing I read today.

Good grief, three pages of posts caused by an author who has little talent for writing but scores 100% for intransigence.

I think it’s time to put your money where your mouth is sunshine, submit and be damned.

Attack Helicopter wrote:

Repeal "Liberate the Mystical Council"

---

The World Assembly,

Noting that The Mystical Council was invaded by forces of The Brotherhood of Malice and others on the 7th of February, 2022,

Reporting, unfortunantly, that on the 25th of February in the same year, the region fell to the hands of the merciless invaders,

Realizing that the Security Council's liberation of the region placed into effect can now be deemed useless,

Hereby repeals "Liberate the Mystical Council".

“This is WAY too short to be considered a proper resolution. There is not much effort put into this. Also, the one argument that the target should be repealed solely based on the opinion that the target resolution is useless is a highly subjective and invalid claim. Good repeals also usually mention at least multiple moderately major flaws or one major accuracy flaw of the target resolution. The “uselessness” of a resolution is NOT, and has never been, a major valid flaw. Ambassador, you have a lot of work to do on this repeal. For now, the Clevesian people will scream until this repeal draft dies out.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire