NATION

PASSWORD

Split SC from GA Completely

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
The Republic of Lanos
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17727
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Republic of Lanos » Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:38 pm

Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:
Pythagosaurus wrote:Point of advice: if you want the admins to pay attention to you, at least attempt to hide that you're trying to get us to endorse your position that the GA is superior to the SC.


I'm about 1000% certain that neither Todd McCloud nor Sedgistan consider the GA superior to the SC.

Now go away.


Was this statement even called for? What, in Todd's opening post, made you think it merited a reply like that? For that matter what in any of the posts after that made you think it was merited? Are you able to interact with players without resorting to snarkiness?


i think Pyth is having a bad day

User avatar
Topid
Minister
 
Posts: 2818
Founded: Dec 29, 2008
Capitalizt

Postby Topid » Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:42 pm

The Blaatschapen wrote:
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:
The Blaatschapen wrote:It seems I was ignored: What is the current problem? Is it just that the two groups do not mingle well, or is it more?

Read the thread.


I did, and I see the following things:

viewtopic.php?p=836255#p836255
^I responded to you there...
Last edited by Topid on Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Founder, Pacifica

User avatar
Pythagosaurus
Cute Purple Dinosaur
 
Posts: 549
Founded: Nov 24, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Pythagosaurus » Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:45 pm

Sorry, Todd, for getting your allegiance wrong. The complaints in the past had usually been launched by the "omg, get the SC away from me"ers, so the third condition tipped the scales prematurely.

But I still see no compelling arguments or evidence here. I see that a few people in both camps want them split. I see no evidence that you guys are representative rather than merely vocal, nor that you're actually right. Topid's point that a small number of delegates who are only interested in one council will fail to endorse proposals from the other has merit, but I'm not sure that's actually a bad thing. At worst, it means authors have to do a better job of writing and campaigning.

If I'm going to take time out of my schedule to do this, I need something more compelling. For example, you could address the points that [violet] has made and explain why they're no longer valid in the new reality of the WA. Or why they should be outweighed by the arguments against.

User avatar
Todd McCloud
Senator
 
Posts: 4025
Founded: Oct 11, 2006
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Todd McCloud » Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:52 pm

Well, not to sound brash, but the most of the main players have posted in this thread already. And I can cite various threads from the past in which people have really wanted this to happen. The GA side wants their side of the game to be free from the SC, the SC wants their side to be free from the GA so they can have room to establish an identity and grow.
I wrote a book, and another one is on the way!

"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Vekaiyu & Kelssek co-hosted the XII Summer Olympiad

User avatar
Kandarin
Diplomat
 
Posts: 869
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kandarin » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:04 pm

Todd McCloud wrote:Well, not to sound brash, but the most of the main players have posted in this thread already.


I count ten posters thus far, including Pyth. I'd like to think the number of people interested in the WA is a lot more than that.
I wish I remember who wrote:Games like Nationstates are like a big cardboard box, and there are two kinds of people in the world. The kind who look at the empty void inside the box and ask "Where the hell is it?" and the kind who jump into the box with their friends and make it into a fort, or a spaceship.

User avatar
Sedgistan
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 27332
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Sedgistan » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:10 pm

Aside from it allowing the SC to develop a separate identity (which wouldn't just require the division, it'd also need its own, more developed, ruleset), I think the main benefit would be that the Security Council would be used more.

I'd love to see the 'Condemn Nazi Europe' resolution repealed, but I'd feel bad about submitting a resolution when I know it'll taken time away from the General Assembly - especially considering that we've spent so much time on this issue. The same applies to commending TITO again, and maybe other regions like Equilism (and perhaps that commendation of Jey could be brought back). It could also lead to more liberation resolutions - there are some relatively minor regions which have been invaded and locked up, which defenders haven't brought to the Security Council becuase we don't want everyone to turn against us for taking away time from the General Assembly. There's enough scepticism about the Security Council, and I think that some of us are worried about 'overkill' (by taking time away from the GA) causing delegates to vote against every SC resolution.

I know that the WA isn't especially busy at this moment in time, but when I submitted my 'Liberate Feudal Japan' resolution, there were 4 GA resolutions which had attained quorum, and there will be times in the future when the queue is similarly long.

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibot » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:46 pm

[float=right]Image[/float]
I'd be all for separating the voting pages, so the SC and the GA could vote at the same time -- and as Kenny has explained to increase attention for new members. Because as of late, both sides complain about the "time wasted" when a SC or GA proposal comes to vote.

However, I'd be against separating the two branches completely, as needing two email verifications would be a freakin' pain in the arse -- the umbrella of the "World Assembly" does serve as a technical convenience.


[Violet] wrote:Let me put it this way. NS game admins have a limited amount of time to devote to the game. We have far more things we'd like to code than we actually can. When we decide what to work on, we look for ways to deliver the greatest benefit to players with the minimum amount of time.

This particular suggestion has some merit, and I'm open to it, but it would take a fair whack of time and make nearly zero difference to the game. It's not a "terrorist attack" problem, where action must be taken now to prevent catastrophic damage later: trust me, we have a few of those, and this is not one of them.


  • We now have the GA and the SC complaining about each other's proposals coming to the vote and "wasting time".
  • SC authors are holding back on writing proposals, because they don't want to be considered "time wasters".
  • For the SC to 'govern itself', its not only imperative that delegates campaign against bad proposals, but for authors' to be able to repeal when necessary, and re-submit a repeal when necessary.
  • The At-Vote is fairly empty lately, it might be a good time to do some alterations.
Last edited by Unibot on Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:11 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Todd McCloud
Senator
 
Posts: 4025
Founded: Oct 11, 2006
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Todd McCloud » Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:03 pm

Kandarin wrote:
Todd McCloud wrote:Well, not to sound brash, but the most of the main players have posted in this thread already.


I count ten posters thus far, including Pyth. I'd like to think the number of people interested in the WA is a lot more than that.


Pick on Todd day ends around midnight tonight, right? I guess it should read 'many' and by 'many' I mean those who post regularly on the SC forum, from both camps. But that's beside the point, forget I said that.

We could, if the mods would be willing to do this, put a poll up that would be accessible to the SC and GA forums (sort of like a sticky or an announcement) and allow people to debate it there. Over here it can get a little lost as it's not entirely connected wit the two bodies. Would we perhaps be willing to work something like this out?

EDIT: And Oooooh, I do like Unibot's idea.
Last edited by Todd McCloud on Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I wrote a book, and another one is on the way!

"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Vekaiyu & Kelssek co-hosted the XII Summer Olympiad

User avatar
Fit battion
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 161
Founded: Dec 15, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Fit battion » Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:15 pm

I totally support this idea and I am mainly tend to prefer the Security Council, I think we need to raise it's profile and this will do that.
Cheese

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5614
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:56 pm

Unibot wrote:
  • We now have the GA and the SC complaining about each other's proposals coming to the vote and "wasting time".
  • SC authors are holding back on writing proposals, because they don't want to be considered "time wasters".
  • For the SC to 'govern itself', its not only imperative that delegates campaign against bad proposals, but for authors' to be able to repeal when necessary, and re-submit a repeal when necessary.
  • The At-Vote is fairly empty lately, it might be a good time to do some alterations.

Not to mention, members of both branches are telegramming against proposals from the other branch to prevent them from going to vote. I can name at least two SC proposals and one GA proposal that has not reached quorum because of this. GA and SC members regularly accuse each other of trolling on the WA forums, chiefly the SC forum, which distracts from debate and contributes to inter-branch discord. None of this would be an issue with separate voting queues/pages for the two branches; then neither branch can accuse the other of either leeching off or sabotaging them. Both the GA and the SC need their own "space" in order to conduct business without such meddling and/or attacks from unfriendly members of the other branch.

And I do believe Unibot's suggestion suits this purpose just fine.
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
Naivetry
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1277
Founded: Aug 02, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Naivetry » Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:56 pm

There are things that can be done short of splitting the at-vote queues too, although I would also support Unibot's solution.

Just adding a line or two about each body on the page in-game would help, because a whole lot of people don't make it to these forums to read the forum descriptions. Even those who do come here are not likely to understand the reasons behind the creation of two separate chambers, unless they were around for that whole debate. Right now it seems as if no one outside of the major forums has gotten the memo that the Security Council is supposed to be a separate chamber which plays by different rules.

That's why we saw the repeal of 10000 Island's Commendation a few days ago. The reasoning I got from over half of the delegates who responded to me on the topic was that the Commendation should be repealed because the WA had no business handing out Commendations and Condemnations at all. It wasn't politicking about raiders vs. defenders that got this repeal through. It was a fundamental dislike for C/C's as a whole - the idea that the WA is not supposed to have anything to do with regional politics in the first place. If it were made clearer (in the FAQ, or even in little one-line descriptions on the WA page in-game) that the Security Council was created explicitly for politicking, the SC might have a little more room to breathe.

And Sedge is right - among defenders at least there is a deep hesitation about actually making use of the Security Council for the things it's meant to do, because every time one of these things comes up, we get a barrage of posts complaining about how all of our resolutions are a waste of time, etc. The worry is that the more we use the SC, the more polarized the opposition will become, until when we really need to get a region liberated we won't be able to convince people of the urgency of the situation. Same with C/Cs. There are folks I'd love to Commend or Condemn, but with this ridiculous notion just stated in the repeal that we have to commend or condemn people "neutrally", there's no way it'll ever happen; you'd have to be a clone of Kandarin to have a chance. :P
Last edited by Naivetry on Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Mexar
Envoy
 
Posts: 226
Founded: Dec 07, 2007
Mother Knows Best State

Postby Mexar » Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:01 pm

I'm also in favor in Unibot's idea. Right now it seems like SC & GA members are stepping on each other's toes. My feet hurt! ;)

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9010
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:03 pm

Kandarin wrote:I don't recall both sides calling for the establishment of two seperate bodies from which players must be forced to pick one. Much of this thread seems to be founded on the presumption that players want to - or are supposed to - pick only one aspect of NS and play it to the deliberate exclusion of others. I realize that some of you play that way, but not everyone does. Not everyone in RP shuns Gameplay; not everyone in Gameplay shuns RP. I come across plenty of people who like playing and ebating both aspects and regularly go back and forth between them, often with the same nations. Why must segregation be handed down to them from on high? Why must they be forced by the game to choose?

Who's forcing players to pick one over the other? Participate in both, by all means. We just want separate pages, so that the chambers aren't interrupting each other. (Which is what my colleagues and I have been asking for since the SC was created.)

Don't make a mountain out of a molehill here. We've already had months of those annoying "RP vs GP vs SC vs GA" philosophical arguments.

Pythagosaurus wrote:I see that a few people in both camps want them split.

Kandarin wrote:I count ten posters thus far, including Pyth. I'd like to think the number of people interested in the WA is a lot more than that.


Do we need to pass a resolution, or something? 8) Very few people actually participate in the WA (GA or SC) outside of voting on proposal. You're pretty much looking at a sizeable chunk of the pool, here.
Last edited by Glen-Rhodes on Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibot » Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:11 pm

Do we need to pass a resolution, or something?



Behold! :p

Liberate the Security Council

The Peoples of the Security Council,

Perceiving the short history of the Security Council, so far, as an unsteady beginning rampaged with uncertainty and hesitancy;

Recalling the World Assembly, and at least one historical institution before that, whose beginnings were equally as unsteady;

Aware of the difference between the Security Council and these successful establishments lies not in their ideals, but their organization;

Determining that a higher degree of self-determination, and freedom is thus necessary for a successful establishment;

Whereas the World Assembly Security Council is disregarded as an international malingerer, a distraction from the imperative directives of the General Assembly;

Distressed to hear of potential authors of Security Council Resolutions who have decided not to pursue issues of international security out of fear, and intimidation from naysayers who have been attached to the Security Council not out of preference, but because of its association with the General Assembly -- which is not unlike the relationship of a child to its older brother;

Concerned that such a fraternal shadow may cast darkness over some pressing issues in our world;

Hereby, in the name of dedication to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, liberates the Security Council.
Last edited by Unibot on Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Topid
Minister
 
Posts: 2818
Founded: Dec 29, 2008
Capitalizt

Postby Topid » Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:20 pm

Hehe Unibolt! As I said on the last page I'd support breaking into to seperate pages too, but I don't think most would agree with us.

Glenn is right, this is about all you are going to get to post unless a mod/admin makes a sticky in one/both of the WA forums, and even then, you won't get many more to post.

Nai, love you to death but I don't think I agree with you about the repeal... ;) Maybe most people (delegates) who responded to you said that, but I'm guessing a vast majority of those who you contacted did not respond. And I'm also guessing that the people who don't like C/C's in general feel more strongly about their belief than the people who voted for it based on spelling/grammar/WA neutrality/10k other issues, and thus would be less likely to respond. The repeal happened because the original resolution said nothing, and requested people to vote to commend simply on the reason that "TITO is defender!" And what it did say, it didn't spell correctly, including the NAME of the region...

I'm just wondering, GAers: has the GA gotten any less IC after the SC was instated? I could imagine we could use that as a reason to split the two as much as possible. OOC and IC are confusing enough without the WA switching between them every four days. (Just looking for every possible reason we can use to back up the seperation.)

EDITED because I made a spelling fail.
Last edited by Topid on Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Founder, Pacifica

User avatar
Mad Sheep Railgun
Diplomat
 
Posts: 587
Founded: Jun 27, 2009
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mad Sheep Railgun » Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:59 pm

@ Naivetry: I'm not a fan of the SC or of C&Cs in particular and I voted Against the repeal.

@ Unibot: Are you going to submit that? :lol:

@ Topid: I've gotten much less IC but that's mostly because I'm using this OOC puppet in the WA. Since the arrival of the SC I've made the decision that my main nations will no longer acknowledge the WA IC. As far as Yelda, New Leicestershire, Aundotutunagir, Iron Felix etc are concerned, the WA no longer exists. Now I haven't managed to keep that up 100%. A few times (like during the TEA debate) I've been unable to resist posting IC, but for the most part those nations have stayed away from the WA.
Watch The World Assembly, Tuesdays at 7:00 on K-SPAN

User avatar
Topid
Minister
 
Posts: 2818
Founded: Dec 29, 2008
Capitalizt

Postby Topid » Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:04 pm

I own The Security Council. You totally have my permission, Uni!! (Blah blah know it's illegal blah blah)
Founder, Pacifica

User avatar
Unibot
Senator
 
Posts: 4292
Founded: May 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibot » Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:13 pm

Topid wrote:I own The Security Council. You totally have my permission, Uni!! (Blah blah know it's illegal blah blah)


Thanks.

Is it illegal? I tried to word it so it wouldn't be. I don't see any rule saying that a SC proposal can't fully ignore the situation at hand and talk about a completely different subject, *cough* Condemn Nazi Europe *cough* and it doesn't require any technical changes.

Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:
@ Unibot: Are you going to submit that? :lol:



It's kind of heavy-worded, but eh.. I've got lots of free time for campaigning. Maybe I will. :p

User avatar
Topid
Minister
 
Posts: 2818
Founded: Dec 29, 2008
Capitalizt

Postby Topid » Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:24 pm

Regions can't be liberated when they have a founder. So it's an itty bitty bit illegal. But who cares?
Founder, Pacifica

User avatar
Todd McCloud
Senator
 
Posts: 4025
Founded: Oct 11, 2006
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Todd McCloud » Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:19 pm

I'd support it. I'm sure a lot of the other SC people would as well, along with people from GA.
I wrote a book, and another one is on the way!

"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Vekaiyu & Kelssek co-hosted the XII Summer Olympiad

User avatar
Omigodtheyclonedkenny
Secretary
 
Posts: 39
Founded: Jan 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Omigodtheyclonedkenny » Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:15 pm

Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:@ Topid: I've gotten much less IC but that's mostly because I'm using this OOC puppet in the WA. Since the arrival of the SC I've made the decision that my main nations will no longer acknowledge the WA IC. As far as Yelda, New Leicestershire, Aundotutunagir, Iron Felix etc are concerned, the WA no longer exists. Now I haven't managed to keep that up 100%. A few times (like during the TEA debate) I've been unable to resist posting IC, but for the most part those nations have stayed away from the WA.

As evidenced by your sig, my own nation has had its issues with recognizing the legitimacy of the WA, since it makes very little sense from an RP standpoint to acknowledge an organization that regularly discusses "players," "offsite forums," "region-crashers" and so forth. But I keep a puppet (i.e., this one) in case I want to vote OOCly on things. The RP explanation is that this nation is an island if ill-bred malcontents that the government turned over to the gnomes as a cruel joke. As it is, I rarely post IC anymore.

But I don't know how much good it will do to revisit GAers griefs or portray the SC as a helpless victim of GA bullies. That the shared queue creates unnecessary friction between players and presents an obstacle to play in both chambers should be enough for the admins to consider separation (and under normal circumstances, I'm sure it would). Incidentally, does anyone think if all us GAers came out against this idea it would help speed it along? :p

Uni, your proposal deserves its own thread. Let's see if it can withstand a round of SC rules-lawyering.

User avatar
The Monkye
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 59
Founded: Jun 02, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Monkye » Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:40 am

I'd approve that proposal Unibot. But that's because I have a sense of humor and I appreciate the humorous intentions Max had when he made this game...and there's nothing wrong with humorous resolutions as long as they fit in the rules.



Anyway, as I see it the GA and the SC 'getting in each other's way' is as much a mental construct of ours as anything else. Perhaps splitting the two 'houses' in the way Unibot suggested would be a way around this hangup, certainly I wouldn't be against it.
Equilism citizen and ninja wizard.

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ardchoille » Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:11 am

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:
Topid wrote:[sarcasm]I feel like after all this time, I should be punished for agreeing with him now. :p[/saracsm]

Ardchoille could do it; she punishes herself for agreeing with me all the time! :p


You're referring to the posts that begin, "Much though it pains me to agree with the Kennyites on anything ..."? :D

Look, I don't fancy your chances on this. The separation of the SC from the GA was apparently a hard slog of coding for Max. Whether it would be harder still to completely separate their votes is something I know nothing about. but I'm guessing yes.

But If you really do want to get it to a vote -- presumably to gauge support? -- I think a Liberation proposal is a rather clunky way to campaign for it. First, you'd have to get enough WA nations in the region The Security Council to elect a Delegate. Then you'd have to get the Delegate to impose a password, then submit a Liberation proposal (ie, that the password be lifted).

(If it's a founder-imposed password, the game mechanics won't recognise it. So, as a general rule, trying to Liberate a region that has a founder would be just a waste of time.)

All the same, I think it would be simpler/you'd have more luck getting it to a vote as a C&C in the style Mad Sheep Railgun has been using for his joke proposals: create a nation or region named for the topic you want to discuss, then condemn it.

That's such an easy way of politicking I'm surprised it hasn't yet been used for serious purposes. I checked with the admins, and the creation of one-day (or short-term) use nations apparently doesn't clog up the servers or do anything dire. (It's also a fine old UN/WA/GA tradition, though for different purposes.) In this case, you've already got a region, as Topid volunteered.

Of course, either as a Liberation or as a C&C, you'd have to first get it to quorum, then take it to a vote, and if you did you'd face the wrath of the uninvolved over what might prove to be a fruitless (ie, time-wasting) exercise.

Note, I'm not coming down for or agin', I'm just trying to avoid stuff-ups in the proposals queue. Since I imagine both chambers' proposals running concurrently would make more work for the mods, don't expect us to be all unicorns and rainbows.

But the person you'll have to convince is Max. Particularly, you'd have to convince him that enough SC proposals would come through to justify the effort involved. FIrst he'd look at what's come through so far. And, on that basis, it's a trickle. Even though mods delete very few SC proposals, not many of them reach quorum. So you need to find some proof that such a change really would increase the number of SC proposals that make it to vote.

One way might be to have a lower quorum for the SC, but I don't know it that's possible or, on the basis of the probable work involved, arguable. I'd strongly oppose lowering the quorum in the GA, considering that even proposals with obvious internal contradictions can get to 25 in a day.
Last edited by Ardchoille on Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

User avatar
Stash Kroh
Envoy
 
Posts: 208
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Stash Kroh » Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:59 am

Apparently Ard, it is possible to submit a liberation proposal on a region that has a founder.

I suppose this means in the event of a delegate being established in the Security Council, he would lack the power to establish a password.

To avoid more sidetracking of the issue at hand, if you have comments about the proposal to liberate the SC through a proposal .. please join this thread instead.
Last edited by Stash Kroh on Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ambassador Adelinda Gliemann
The Clockwork Forge of Stash Kroh
WA Security Council Liaison

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18137
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:12 am

Seeing as Pyth doesn't think enough people have posted in support of splitting the queues & voting chambers completely, here's my vote added to those in favour of doing so.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads