Search results

Why couldn't you have just said that three posts ago.

What NationStates rule does "inappropriate behavior" violate?

By all means, we don't want you getting into a nasty fight with HTML.

Greitbart: Delegate forcibly disbands committee to oversee his government after shady dealings and "consultation" in private, more at 11:00.

Up to you, I guess, but that region doesn't have anything to do with The North Pacific, we basically just graffiti'd their walls and moved on.

That's just a tag raid. We didn't colonize the region or anything, just changed up the WFE and left.

Against. He's already commended and this commendation doesn't provide much more beyond that to justify a second commendation.

Even reading the very first sentence of the resolution would give you your answer. Might I suggest you give the resolution you're voting on even a passing glance?

This resolution has already been discarded (see thread title), and thus there is no further reason to vote on it.

Against.

Well you've certainly proven that you've learned your lesson and can become a valued member of the community even after that. Good on you, Angshire, glad to see that you've learned from your mistakes.

Nation: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=darcania Qualifying status: NPA Destination nation: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=darcania Link to card: https://www.nationstates.net/page=deck/card=3218322/season=2 Card farmer: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=card_farmer_1319

Looks good to me.

...two consecutive terms. I'd recommend that this be reworded to say "replace" instead. Saying "remove" implies something very different. oversight I don't think ideology needs to be capitalized here.

Such a requirement would be impossible in any RA-sanctioned destructive mission, since such a mission is defined as being irreparable. It'd have to be worded just so.

Could we not gravedig old threads?

That's alright, everyone is new at some point. Commendations and Condemnations in the SC are, in most cases, aimed at the player behind nations, not at individual nations, so most SC resolutions of this type will have the target of the resolution be the person's main nation (in this case...

How is it poorly written? Could you point out examples and how they are so poorly written?

rood

recall

The law as it is currently written allows term-limited Delegates to run again after at least one term has passed. Delegates are only term-limited after two consecutive terms, and cannot serve a third consecutive term.

Our votes here don't affect the IFV.

For

THE CHEDDAR HAS BEEN LIBERATED SHEOGORATH IS MOST PLEASED BRING OUT THE DANCING CRABS

Funny how this bill pops up every time McM is Delegate.

I see some factual inaccuracies and a minor grammatical error. Fact check: it's Cretanja Queendom, not Cretenja Kingdom. Note that "Cretenja" is a misspelling, and that the second E should be an A instead: "Cretanja". "Besides the tag runs, we also did a detag run, as well, where we detagged 5...

Slight issue with the wording here, the way it's worded makes it sound like when exceptions exist, it is optional ("may be") for the Delegate to publicly authorize them. I think "must be" would be better here.

This needs an omnibus clause, as it amends multiple documents.

For.

Mr. Speaker, while I know a proper avenue to address this is with the courts and not in this thread, I'd like to note that it has been held by past Speakers (and, indeed, by the Court) that ejected nations do not lose citizenship, by virtue of the fact that they did not leave the region by their...