| Condemn Aegara | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 26 2009, 06:25 PM (781 Views) | |
| sedge | Nov 26 2009, 06:25 PM Post #1 |
|
Sedgistan
|
Anyone know anything about the person who wrote it? I know they're TGing delegates for approvals, but the nation is unknown. |
![]() |
|
| Firstaria | Nov 26 2009, 11:25 PM Post #2 |
|
Actually i think this is like the revenge i didn't asked for. Well, the fact i didn't asked doesn't mean i didn't want it, but is strange to see THAT much approvals even before i discovered that. |
![]() |
|
| [unibot] | Nov 27 2009, 01:08 AM Post #3 |
|
Yellow Matter Custard
|
I talked to the author, he's an oldtimer of Grand Central, Aegara actually wrote the proposal and passed it on to the documented author. Its for politically reasons, first and foremost, raiders will be attracted to the badge (which has become like candy for them). Aegara is a good political ally for me, he always approves my proposals (hey I'm a realpolitikean !) , so I felt inclined to approve his "wish". However, the "author" has stated he contacted all of the delegates in NationStates, which I'm pretty sure could get my dead grandmother singing "Mean Mister Mustard" up-to-vote. The telegram...
Edited by unibot, Nov 27 2009, 01:09 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Todd McCloud | Nov 27 2009, 09:43 AM Post #4 |
|
Well, even if the guy did send this to a nation to 'self-condemn' himself, my fears are realized. There is no neutrality in the SC. The count for this condemnation is currently at 82. Goob's commendation maxed out around 70 or so. It could be that the guy telegrammed more people, but I think it's also because he has that raider label on it. Let me break it down:
Okay, I can understand that. The Commend 10000 Islands repeal is what started this whole mess, but again, I too supported it because I felt a better one could've been written and, had a better one been written, it would've passed quite easily.
This makes me sad. It seems to say that helping raiders is a condemnable offense. So in cutthroat logic, the broad determination of facilitating a raider is doing something that isn't good in the eyes of the WA. In short, anyone who even tries to defend them could be viewed as a 'bad guy'. And while I know this is true and opinions are as varied as the people who create such opinions, having it as an official response from the WA is troubling for me.
So does Equilism, but they won't be condemned anytime soon. Heck, so do a lot of raider and defender nations.
It was a repeal on something that would've been repealed eventually. I know there are some resolutions out there that could be worded differently, but that one really needed to be fixed. In time, it would've been repealed and a better one would be submitted.
Overall, a weak argument. So he repealed 10000 Islands... that's kind of about it. So he facilitates raiders. Well, I defend raiders in arguments because not very many people will. So he telegrams people trying to get them in his army. Bing deal: so does Wham and Naivetry in Equilism. The speed at which this reached quorum startles me, though. It outlines to me that no matter what you do in the game, if you have that raider label intact or are even accused of being a raider, doing raiding things, even defending raiders, that is a condemnable offense. My dream of seeing upstanding raiders and former raiders commended for what they did has practically vanished. And that is a shame. It will be a cold day before anyone who was affiliated as a raider present or past, is commended for their actions as pure talent and not as an evil nation or player. Edited by Todd McCloud, Nov 27 2009, 09:44 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| sedge | Nov 27 2009, 10:38 AM Post #5 |
|
Sedgistan
|
I agree with everything in your post above. You could add 'self-commending/condemning' to my topic asking for extra rules, though obviously that'd be hard to prove. Better than that, you could surely get it deleted for violating this rule - that tit-for-tat proposals will get deleted. 3 out of 5 clauses relate to him repealing Commend 10000 Islands. EDIT: Just gone and added it to the silly/illegal list on that basis. Edited by sedge, Nov 27 2009, 10:41 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Firstaria | Nov 27 2009, 11:14 AM Post #6 |
|
I don't think this is a tit-for-tat. It's a self condemnation, not a counter from 10000 Islands. But still, i think mods will decide about that. |
![]() |
|
| Kalibarr | Nov 27 2009, 04:59 PM Post #7 |
|
I reported it yesterday and Ard said they were talking about it, possibly even with max. |
![]() |
|
| sedge | Nov 27 2009, 07:16 PM Post #8 |
|
Sedgistan
|
Yep, thats what she's posted in the thread. Luckily my resolution gives them a bit more time to think. I really hope they do delete this one. |
![]() |
|
| sedge | Nov 28 2009, 04:41 PM Post #9 |
|
Sedgistan
|
OK, so Ard won't be deleting it, but I'll send a telegram to all the delegates who approved it later today, asking them to remove their approval. |
![]() |
|
| sedge | Nov 28 2009, 05:22 PM Post #10 |
|
Sedgistan
|
OK, how's this message:
Edited by sedge, Nov 28 2009, 08:31 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Drafting Floor of the Security Council · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
8:21 AM Jul 11
|







8:21 AM Jul 11