Advertisement
by Southern Bellz » Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:32 pm
by EVIL BEYOND COMPARE » Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:37 pm
by Unibotian WASC Mission » Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:46 pm
Southern Bellz wrote:I will be doing everything I can to make sure people understand what is going on, at least in my region.
by Southern Bellz » Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:00 pm
by Unibotian WASC Mission » Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:08 pm
by Mikeswill » Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:13 pm
by Unibot » Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:30 pm
Mikeswill wrote:This Resolution refers to the Region not the World Assembly entity. As such we believe that the Delegate of a Region who has situation id powers ought o be allowed to bar entry to the Region of their Delegacy pursuant to the rules of the game.
In this particular situation the Delegate has not imposed barriers to entry and the Founder of the Region does not seem too concerned or he would act in accordance to his fancy.
We think that this Resolution is a guise to confuse WA Nations in believing that the effect is to Liberate the Security Council of the World Assembly. Were this to be true the only effective Resolution in agreement with our perspective would be to disband the abusive entity in its entirety.
Until then, NationStates Region will continue to vote against Resolutions which erode the rights of Delegates in Sovereign Regions from outside interference and dangerous precedent.
Therefore, Mikeswill's vote against "Liberate The Security Council" has been noted.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:38 pm
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:You know it hasn't been implemented yet. Just approved, and well.. promised.
But if you, or anyone who becomes newly aware of the idea of change from this proposal, has a problem with the idea, it would be wise to bring it up now. Not afterwards it gets implemented.
This thread would be a good place to start for debating the idea itself, while getting noticed by an admin. > viewtopic.php?f=15&t=22185&start=25
by Unibot » Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:44 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:You know it hasn't been implemented yet. Just approved, and well.. promised.
But if you, or anyone who becomes newly aware of the idea of change from this proposal, has a problem with the idea, it would be wise to bring it up now. Not afterwards it gets implemented.
This thread would be a good place to start for debating the idea itself, while getting noticed by an admin. > viewtopic.php?f=15&t=22185&start=25
I don't think anyone is objecting to the idea by itself, just the fact that it is being introduced in a proposal. At any rate, I would not encourage posters to start flooding the Technical forum with complaints after a decision has already been made. You don't want an idea you like to be suddenly bombarded by confusion and (likely) uninformed rants. The Technical forum is open to all players, but it is not designed for rowdy town-hall style debates where admins have to sift through pages of nonsense just to find a few productive comments that actually help them do their jobs.
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Goobergunchia » Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:06 pm
by Doitzel » Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:53 am
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:Unibot says "you do know this idea has already been agreed upon by the admins, right? A gauge really isn't needed, the idea that this proposal should be used as a gauge just started as joke. Though it still remains a joke or as you called it ' a cute little stunt', the proposal is meant to be a way to transition the WA into a era of divided proposal floors, others have even heralded it as a founding document for the WASC ... which is anything but humbling, but my goal with it was just to help smooth the transition of the WA using a proposal while getting a few laughs out of it (and passing the first joke proposal in the WA? Yes/No?), as years from now when newbies join the game and try to make sense of this mess of events they might not have these threads to look from as 'primary sources of history', if you will, but the WA resolutions will always exist".
Kandarin wrote:There's an argument to be made here that the resolution isn't a very good gauge of player opinion of the aforementioned thread if most people can't agree on what it's about. However, that will have to wait for more people to come in and say that they don't know what it's about in order to be credible - as it stands, most commenters seem to know the suggestion implicit in the resolution and the ratio of those perplexed hasn't exceeded that which can be expected from any resolution in either chamber.
by Firstaria » Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:31 am
by Philimbesi » Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:35 am
by Mavenu » Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:44 am
Philimbesi wrote:Actually the only point this is proving is that the far majority of WA voters regardless of which side is their "preferred" are simply too lazy to review the thing they are voting on.
by Philimbesi » Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:55 am
Hell yea. But they've been doing it for 6 years, so why should they stop
by Spartan Philidelphia » Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:02 am
EVIL BEYOND COMPARE wrote:just so you know a liberation gets rid of a password on a region. your region has no password. this thing is pointless
Southern Bellz wrote:this thing is pointless.
Firstaria wrote:I like the SC and i think we should get the same, no wait MORE importance than the GA, but i think this "Liberation thing" seems more a joke than a real revolution. So i'm sorry, i support your cause, but i'll vote aganist.
by Ardchoille » Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:14 am
Sedgistan wrote:Its not illegal, otherwise Ardchoille wouldn't have encouraged it.
by Bears Armed » Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:52 am
Philimbesi wrote:Hell yea. But they've been doing it for 6 years, so why should they stop
Don't expect them to, I've often thought of putting together a GA proposal that mandates putting babies on spikes and calling it "The Child Protection Act". Just to see if it was able to get legs.
by Charlotte Ryberg » Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:11 am
by Philimbesi » Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:13 am
OOC: It would (almost certainly) be deleted as illegal, because there's already been a ruling that the content of a NSUN GA proposal has to match the title.
by UpperWales » Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:34 am
by Philimbesi » Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:48 am
+25 Points for "Was created to make a point"
-25 Points for "No one got the point"
by Jey » Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:20 pm
by Sedgistan » Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:09 pm
Ardchoille wrote:*snip*
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement