Bhang is bad

by **UsaUSAusa1** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 6:37 am

Description: Description: NOTING the various unnecessarily implemented bans instituted thereof

FURTHER NOTING the nation gloats about the intention to ban others through the name known for in nationstates

UNDERSTANDING every regional official has a right to ban anyone found in non-compliance of the region's rules and that of nationstates

BELIEVING there has been an over the top reasons for banning a nation from a region just because another nation from the same region had previously, perhaps, legitimately, have been banned.

ACCEPTING the fact that the said nation has prevented natives of democracy for a way of life from having friendships and harmony among their peers despite of the fact an embassy between the two said regions is open at the time of this resolution's drafting.

CONDEMNS the nation for its discriminatory nature in which it conducts its region's business.

by **UsaUSAusa1** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 6:50 am

please comments as you observe. Thank you.

by **Wallenburg** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 6:52 am

Please include the name of the nation you're condemning in your proposal.

by **UsaUSAusa1** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 7:02 am

Wallenburg wrote:Please include the name of the nation you're condemning in your proposal.

The why not have a banjection of bhang bhang duc

by **Wallenburg** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 7:03 am

UsaUSAusa1 wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:Please include the name of the nation you're condemning in your proposal.
The why not have a banjection of bhang bhang duc

Wallenburg wrote:Please include the name of the nation you're condemning in your proposal.

by **UsaUSAusa1** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 7:11 am

Description: Description: NOTING the various unnecessarily implemented bans instituted thereof

FURTHER NOTING bhang bhang duc gloats about the intention to ban others through the name known for in nationstates

UNDERSTANDING every regional official has a right to ban anyone found in non-compliance of the region's rules and that of nationstates

BELIEVING there has been an over the top reasons for banning a nation from a region just because another nation from the same region had previously, perhaps, legitimately, have been banned.

ACCEPTING the fact that bhang bhang duc has prevented natives of democracy for a way of life from having friendships and harmony among their peers despite of the fact an embassy between the two said regions is open at the time of this resolution's drafting.

by **Tefera** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 7:54 am

Excellent proposal.

by **UsaUSAusa1** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 7:59 am

Tefera wrote:Excellent proposal.

Thanks. hope to have earned your support.

by **John Turner** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:26 am

I am guessing you spammed up the RMB and were shown the door? It really is a shame things like that happen. Opposed.

Just going to drop this little nugget here as it seems relevant:

Post by UsaUSAusa1 suppressed by Yy4u.

The Federal Republic of UsaUSAusa1

2 days 2 hours ago

This glorious region must ban immediately the nation of Bang bang duc. He is ruining our region by sending telegrams saying how boring the region is. You can leave if you think that. We will be fine without you.

That should probably explain everything to anybody who actually cares. Now if you would please kindly cease in spamming up the Security Council with needless proposals, that would be great.

by **UsaUSAusa1** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:31 am

John Turner wrote:I am guessing you spammed up the RMB and were shown the door? It really is a shame things like that happen. Opposed.

Not relevant to the case at all.

by **John Turner** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:34 am

UsaUSAusa1 wrote:
John Turner wrote:I am guessing you spammed up the RMB and were shown the door? It really is a shame things like that happen. Opposed.

Not relevant to the case at all.

Really? I disagree.

Tefera wrote:Excellent proposal.

Puppetwankery? Really?

by **ROM** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:35 am

UsaUSAusa1 wrote:
John Turner wrote:I am guessing you spammed up the RMB and were shown the door? It really is a shame things like that happen. Opposed.

Not relevant to the case at all.

Umm, it kinda is. If you were RMB spamming and you got banned, then BBD had complete justification to ban you. Even still, this is a awful proposal and I'd be flabbergasted if it ever passed. BBD is simply not condemnable, even if this was decently written, which is not.

by **Tefera** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:58 am

John Turner wrote:I am guessing you spammed up the RMB and were shown the door? It really is a shame things like that happen. Opposed.

Just going to drop this little nugget here as it seems relevant:

Post by UsaUSAusa1 suppressed by Yy4u.

The Federal Republic of UsaUSAusa1

2 days 2 hours ago

This glorious region must ban immediately the nation of Bang bang duc. He is ruining our region by sending telegrams saying how boring the region is. You can leave if you think that. We will be fine without you.

That should probably explain everything to anybody who actually cares. Now if you would please kindly cease in spamming up the Security Council with needless proposals, that would be great.

I am telling everyone, the wrongdoing done by him. Nothing wrong with that. The post by the way has been modified by you. You found it in our regional box too so it is not a spam at all. Disgraceful.

by **Tefera** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:02 am

Rom wrote:
UsaUSAusa1 wrote:Not relevant to the case at all.

Umm, it kinda is. If you were RMB spamming and you got banned, then BBD had complete justification to ban you. Even still, this is a awful proposal and I'd be flabbergasted if it ever passed. BBD is simply not condemnable, even if this was decently written, which is not.

This is not true. Not sure why John would accusing me of spamming that region. I never spammed Bhang's region. Which is West Pacific

by **John Turner** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:04 am

Tefera wrote:
John Turner wrote:I am guessing you spammed up the RMB and were shown the door? It really is a shame things like that happen. Opposed.

Just going to drop this little nugget here as it seems relevant:

Post by UsaUSAusa1 suppressed by Yy4u.

The Federal Republic of UsaUSAusa1

2 days 2 hours ago

This glorious region must ban immediately the nation of Bang bang duc. He is ruining our region by sending telegrams saying how boring the region is. You can leave if you think that. We will be fine without you.

That should probably explain everything to anybody who actually cares. Now if you would please kindly cease in spamming up the Security Council with needless proposals, that would be great.

I am telling everyone, the wrongdoing done by him. Nothing wrong with that. The post by the way has been modified by you. You found it in our regional box too so it is not a spam at all. Disgraceful.

How was it modified? And why are you showing support for a proposal drafted by your puppet? That is the definition of puppetwankery, and is liable to get you slapped on the nose with a newspaper by the mods.

by **Wrapper** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:10 am

UsaUSAusa1 wrote:
Tefera wrote:Excellent proposal.

Thanks. hope to have earned your support.

You just got banned a day for spamming the WA with nonsense posts last week. You spammed Gameplay with a "vote for this" post that doesn't belong there. And now you're spamming your own proposal thread by posting with a puppet, agreeing with yourself.

Before you get back from your *** three-day ban for repeated, excessive spamming ***, you should read the site rules if you're going to continue to use the forums.

by **John Turner** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:10 am

Thanks Wrapper.

by **Bhang Bhang Duc** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:28 am

Oh dearie, dearie me.

Oh well at least this cheered me up after a not great day at work.

Edit: Nice digging through our RMB as well Mr Turner.

by **Viking Confederacy** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:36 am

"FURTHER NOTING bhang bhang duc gloats about the intention to ban others through the name known for in nationstates"

This is very awkwardly worded, and I cannot figure out what it is supposed to mean.

by **Bhang Bhang Duc** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:38 am

Viking Confederacy wrote:"FURTHER NOTING bhang bhang duc gloats about the intention to ban others through the name known for in nationstates"

This is very awkwardly worded, and I cannot figure out what it is supposed to mean.

I know what you mean and I'm supposed to have done it. It would be nice to be condemned by someone who is literate.

by **Wallenburg** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 11:11 am

Why on Earth and heaven did you submit this crap?

by **We Are Not the NSA** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 12:19 pm

UsaUSAusa1 wrote:Description: Description: NOTING the various unnecessarily implemented bans instituted thereof

Unnecessary? I thought you were spamming them?

FURTHER NOTING the nation gloats about the intention to ban others through the name known for in nationstates

... wtf does this even mean?

UNDERSTANDING every regional official has a right to ban anyone found in non-compliance of the region's rules and that of nationstates

But I thought you were spamming? Pretty sure that breaches both TWP's rules and NS's rules.

BELIEVING there has been an over the top reasons for banning a nation from a region just because another nation from the same region had previously, perhaps, legitimately, have been banned.

Umm... No. Is it over the top when someone bans a nation coming from Nugut?

ACCEPTING the fact that the said nation has prevented natives of democracy for a way of life from having friendships and harmony among their peers despite of the fact an embassy between the two said regions is open at the time of this resolution's drafting.

This event is isolated to only 2 regions? Work it out through diplomacy like any mature adult would do, don't try to make it an international issue.

CONDEMNS the nation for its discriminatory nature in which it conducts its region's business.

This is poorly written, and frankly a bit immature. However, due to the target, I will have to give my support.

by **We Are Not the NSA** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 12:23 pm

Btw, the submitted version of this proposal has an R3 violation, as it never states which nation it is condemning throughout the entire text.

by **Bhang Bhang Duc** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:04 pm

We Are Not the NSA wrote:This is poorly written, and frankly a bit immature. However, due to the target, I will have to give my support.

Aw thanks NSA! :hug:

by **Pierconium** » Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:54 am

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:
Viking Confederacy wrote:"FURTHER NOTING bhang bhang duc gloats about the intention to ban others through the name known for in nationstates"

This is very awkwardly worded, and I cannot figure out what it is supposed to mean.

I know what you mean and I'm supposed to have done it. It would be nice to be condemned by someone who is literate.

You are now condemned.

You're welcome.

Bhang is bad

Bhang is bad

Who is online