Search results

If it was a W.A.P. and not a W.I.P. I might support.

I like the idea of the birthday taskforce. :)

From my understanding, they retracted the comment due to concerns about getting moderation's attention. The URA publishes in their dispatches a summary of what members are saying, I don't believe it's appropriate given their policy to enact a consistent vote against them. Now, if their dispatch...

Against. We are seriously commending someone for founding a puppet storage?

Given that @Boston Castle made a post in this thread which they later deleted, I'll respond without being able to quote them lol. To paraphrase, they answered that URA should apologize for "running" it (which was somewhat unclear as to what it means precisely) and that August should apologize...

Is it the URA that should apologize or August?

Against.

For

For. As if there weren't enough reasons to support, August is giving me more.

Against.

Against.

For.

Against.

It's been a while. Any update from the Court?

This is moot given that Halo is still in the WA—just under another nation.

Against. Halo is a non-complier, someone who has signed on as saying that they are willing to disregard international agreements. For that, they should not be commended when they are going to participate in a body and willingly ignore the rules. They are not someone the SC should hold up as a...

Against

For. Disappointing to see the Delegate break with the longstanding tradition of following the forum vote just because he didn’t feel like the nominee deserved it.

It has been around a week, would it be possible to receive some update on the timeline to gain more information on this?

On Personal Standing It is clear that there is no personal standing for the petitioner's request for review to be accepted due to them being adversely affected. In the request for review "The meaning of affected party", the Court held that "[t]he affected party must detail in their review...

It could be an error in the system and it will correct itself at the next update?

Your party seems too ambitious.

For

Against.

It's not that individuals are not willing to come up with a solution, it's that those that signed believe that the best solution is for the admins to do their duty and protect the community from OOC threats. If the work is too much for the admins to deal, if there is not enough admins, well...

Against for reasons already covered.

For because should it pass, it will likely cause salt. Not sure whether that's from raiders or defenders but it should be entertaining either way. :P

Is there any rationale beyond it being policy? Having a large number of threads opened to be voted reduces engagement given players are going to be spreading their votes/discussions over so many threads and disenfranchises newer players when a vote has been opened weeks ago.

Not much need for a voting thread right away in that case.

Nah, I have other reasons for opposition but unfortunately do not have the time to get into them.