NationStates

I can summarize my thoughts after looking at a slew of proposals in the WA, concerning the condemning or commending of nations or regions. Do we really need to put these down as proposals? Some of the entries don't even make sense. 'Condemn this nation because it has few political freedoms.' Or better yet, 'condemn this nation because it expresses an idea of national soveriegnty.'

Excuse me...but who died and said the WA could rule each and every aspect of a nation's life? Where is the sense of independence? Are we just member states of a federation here? Are we honestly belittling ourselves to the level of the USA?!

Look, I'm all for saying this guy has done a good job. This guy has done a bad job. But to waste the time of the WA in infintesimally and ridiculous things such as a pat on the back or a smack in the face. You might as well open up proposals to such things as 'I believe that green socks are the best and any who disagree can go to hell because the WA agreed with me in a vote.' What?!

Omega Uliza wrote:I can summarize my thoughts after looking at a slew of proposals in the WA, concerning the condemning or commending of nations or regions. Do we really need to put these down as proposals? Some of the entries don't even make sense. 'Condemn this nation because it has few political freedoms.' Or better yet, 'condemn this nation because it expresses an idea of national soveriegnty.'

Excuse me...but who died and said the WA could rule each and every aspect of a nation's life? Where is the sense of independence? Are we just member states of a federation here? Are we honestly belittling ourselves to the level of the USA?!

Look, I'm all for saying this guy has done a good job. This guy has done a bad job. But to waste the time of the WA in infintesimally and ridiculous things such as a pat on the back or a smack in the face. You might as well open up proposals to such things as 'I believe that green socks are the best and any who disagree can go to hell because the WA agreed with me in a vote.' What?!

I would expect many of these commendations and condemnations will not receive a quorum of support from the Delegates.

I've read through a good deal, most of them have already.

Omega Uliza wrote:Or better yet, 'condemn this nation because it expresses an idea of national soveriegnty.'

Excuse me...but who died and said the WA could rule each and every aspect of a nation's life? Where is the sense of independence?

The concept of irony eludes you, doesn't it?

Also, stick to the original thread.

They have the support of two or three delegates, but they don't have quorum - right now you need 51 delegates supporting something for it to reach quorum.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:

Omega Uliza wrote:Or better yet, 'condemn this nation because it expresses an idea of national soveriegnty.'

Excuse me...but who died and said the WA could rule each and every aspect of a nation's life? Where is the sense of independence?

The concept of irony eludes you, doesn't it?

Also, stick to the original thread.

The sense of irony, ah that thing I've had so much trouble with at school. I guess an under-educated idiot like myself could clearly never understand you fast talking city dwellers. Pah. Yes I realize the irony of joining the WA and then condemning it myself. Thus, later on, condemning the act of condemning people. That's called hypocrisy, not irony. Irony is the use of words other than their literal intention. Hypocrisy is in saying one thing and then doing another. I realize this makes me a hypocrit, but I digress that no idea can be formed if you create a circle of logic.

The statement of the WA was out of line, yes. They rule us like a dictatorship only with 10,000 voices rather than just one. I still say pah to it.

Furthermore, I shall not stick to the original thread unless ordered to by a forum moderator. Then, should I find out that the forums require you to not create an independent thread, then well I' can just send angry messages from my little tiny Omega Uliza capital.

Perhaps in my spare time, I could present myself in a little more friendly manner, yes? I say no. Illogical actions are not always as irreprehensible as they sound at first. I may come to believe that this new expansion of power for the WA is perfectly fine. But I will not automatically accept an idea which at first glance sounds no better than allowing a group of children to berate and belittle some while commending and lavishing others for their differences. If you wanted to do that, you could do here in the forums.

My MAIN POINT REMAINS...WHY AS WA PROPOSALS?!

EDIT: I did not check the back to be honest. None of the five that passed made sense to me though. I maintain that stance.

Omega Uliza wrote:Furthermore, I shall not stick to the original thread unless ordered to by a forum moderator. Then, should I find out that the forums require you to not create an independent thread, then well I' can just send angry messages from my little tiny Omega Uliza capital.

Lo, summoned from the ether by the speaking of my Magickal Name, I shall now Order you in the Name of Max Himself to stick to the original thread, to which other players have linked you, on pain of [insert High Magick penalty here].

Or, when I come down off my unicorn, I shall just point out that the rule on this board is that players do not start a thread on a topic that already has a thread. You're expected to read the index to see what's being discussed.

If you do double-up, you will have your thread locked or merged to the original.

Since the original is already rivalling War and Peace, this one's locked.