| CorporatePartner (Little Upsilon) | Monday, August 29, 2011 - 04:49 am 
As of: Little Upsilon: Aug 27 2839
...
Security Council Home
view all proposals
Resolution M184M528n70T20D1143Q: No nuclear weapons for Melichor
No nuclear weapons for Melichor.
If the resolution is accepted, the country will be under permanent investigation of the INC.
The Resolution was a proposal by Unappreciated_Customer with the following motivation:
This president, outside of the wisdom of his federation leader has chosen to engage in a nuclear war with various allies against an unseasoned new player. This is a egregious error on his part and demonstrates that he is not responsible enough to wield such weaponry. As responsible security council members it is your duty to protect the Little Upsilon Community.
The Security Council is currently voting about this proposal. The council will make a decision before 20 Mar 2840
4 council members voted for the proposal and 2 council members voted against it.
You are a member of the Security Council and voted against the proposal.
...
Classic case of "fox guarding the hen house".
This Proposal should be voted against by Security Council members, as well as any Resolution vote by General Members.
Absolutely un-justified and ridiculous attempt to 'freeze out' a likely adversary for "Unappreciated_Customer" own benefit. This same leader is the biggest 'self-promoter' of using 'strategic' weapons, as casually as casual could be, then wants to "split the tongue" and say "others should be 'responsible' and shouldn't ever use them".
What a joke beyond a joke. The fact that --4-- Security Council members, so far, have voted in favor of this sham Proposal is truly pathetic.
1) "AK47" aka "crackcocaine" is not a "new leader" if they are making virtually non-stop threats to virtually every leader who comes into live chat, nevermind that they purchased a massive 'strategic' arsenal (obviously, because they used it), and hhad an Empire of no less than --13 countries-- on Little Upsilon, one which had over 130M population. Sorry, "honey", that argument has --0-- validity.
2) Calling "Melichor" as "ir-responsible" has to be the biggest fool's message in history of Simcountry. "Unappreciated_Customer" aka "Psycho_Honey" aka [many other names, like Inanna, etc.] has been probably the most "ir-responsbile abuser" of 'strategic weapons, by --her own admission-- in general. That is --if someone actually believes anything that she says--. So, either way, believe her or not, it's a fraud and a sham...she is truthful about doing it and is self-admittedly "ir-responsbile #1" or she lies about it incessantly, and has little to no credibility whatsoever. Either way, absolutely un-reliable and worthless testimony or claims.
3) "Federations" have abolutely nothing to do with this. In her world of "ploting for the futurew", obviously they likely would, but that was a pathetic over-sight or logical mis-hap to reference anything about "Federations" in this Proposal.
4) On what basis would the Security Council, or a General Membership, justify that country "Melichor" (a "Leader" country under "War Protection: Secure Mode" could possible pose a "threat to the world": 1) the leader "SuperSoldierRCP" has had supposedly --1-- 'real war'. 2) it has been a productive/peaceful/helpful country for more than 350 Little Upsilon years (Presidency start date: Feb 2485), which is probably more than most all of the "voters" have been. 3) If using --some-- 'strategic' weapons in a 'normal war' is somehow 'ir-responsible', then most leaders, and especially "Un-appreciated_Customer" would have been, would be, and would likely be placed far above on the "list" for "review, sanction, and repudiation". It has no logic, other than what of a "psycho" would "dream". Totally il-logical and un-justified.
5) The "Security Council" supposedly "protecting" Little Upsilon Community"? That is total fantasy-talk...there is nothing to "protect", unless all 'war' were to be first 'approved by' the Security Council. In which case, "Unappreciated_Customer" wouldn't likely accept that either...unless, it didn't apply to her...which is basically exactly what this sham statement implies.
This Proposal is a total farce and should have been thrown back into whatever "trash" from whence it came.
On top of all of that, as far as "credibility" is concerned, "Unappreciated_Customer" was self-admittedly --banned-- from the forums recently. The likelihood of one truthful claim in this Proposal is "practically" nil.
|
| Josias Jorvick the 3rd (Little Upsilon) | Monday, August 29, 2011 - 05:15 am
another way to look at it, this is his leader country, so it wont have any real effect... so if you don't like what he did, and want to give a vote of "no confidence," this would be it, not that i'd vote that way, i'm just saying... |
| CorporatePartner (Fearless Blue) | Monday, August 29, 2011 - 05:30 am
"won't have any real effect"...then why doesn't your "main" replace his in the Proposal? If it "doesn't matter", then why would the Proposal ever be made. Totally un-true.
A ban for "No Nuclear Weapons" would place a --major burden-- on any country, especially one who actually trades them. And, there is absolutely no justification for choosing this specific country, and most everyone knows that already.
This Proposal and whoever supports it are like "blind following blind". |
| Josias Jorvick the 3rd (Little Upsilon) | Monday, August 29, 2011 - 06:07 am
or you could just vote to not like what he did. and maybe prove that half the security council isn't voting in their personal friends favor. |
| Laguna | Monday, August 29, 2011 - 06:09 am
An oldie but a goodie.
Quote:
The Resolutions:
The following is a list of proposals a Security Council Member may initiate. But, before that, I would like to remind everyone, that a proposal cannot have the opposition of 4 or more Council Members, or it won't be forwarded to the General Voting, plus all resolutions are effective for a period of 22 years and 6 months.
Forbid Nuclear Weapons - This resolution doesn't forbid the country from buying or owning, nor does it destroy the nuclear or chemical weapons the country possess. If someone sells the sanctioned country nuclear weapons, it will register the transaction on the violation page stating the seller's corp or country.
Forbid Nuclear Facilities - It doesn't ban or close the construction of future or existing Strategic corps, whether they may be private, state, national or public, in the proposal's subject. It does, however, keep a track of the strategic corps that are built in the country on the "view all violations".
Forbid Nuclear Attacks - This proposal is special. Special in the sense it doesn't need to be forwarded to the General Voting to be approved. It completely stops a country from attacking with nuclear or chemical weapons.
Enforce Peace Treaty - If this proposal becomes a resolution, it will stop and unable country A from declaring war at country B - and vice-versa.
Untied Development Aid - This is the most common of all resolutions. It can give a country between 1 and 5T (exactly) of cash, transferred from the Security Council's bank.
So the "major burden" you speak of is... Forbid Nuclear Weapons - This resolution doesn't forbid the country from buying or owning, nor does it destroy the nuclear or chemical weapons the country possess. If someone sells the sanctioned country nuclear weapons, it will be registered the transaction stating the seller's corporation or country.
I posted this in 2008, but it is only outdated in the maximum grant. |
| CorporatePartner (Little Upsilon) | Monday, August 29, 2011 - 06:51 am
OK. Well, would like to see that be "verified" in referenced/published documentation, but thank you for the 'brief'.
If someone doesn't think that being placed under a "Security Council" vote and "ban", whatever the details may be, is not "major", then you obviously aren't the one being proposed for "sanctions".
Of course it doesn't seem "major" to you Laguna..while you sit at "War Level 0" --on all worlds-- selling your Gold Coins for SC$ and USD cash, or whatever else you do with your "free War Protection".
Nevertheless, "there is no need" for such a Proposal, and the "justifications" are ludicrous.
Perhaps the "sanction" is not as "strict" as it seems. Fine. But, the "burden of justification" remains with whomever makes such a "prosposal", and there is neither justification nor credibility to support this. And no one thus far has given any argument to the contrary.
So, bottom line, just vote "no", and let this "psycho" dream of another insane scheme somewhere else. |
| Josias Jorvick the 3rd (Little Upsilon) | Monday, August 29, 2011 - 07:11 am
"But, the "burden of justification" remains with whomever makes such a "prosposal", and there is neither justification nor credibility to support this. And no one thus far has given any argument to the contrary. " -CP
huh? what? are we talking about supersoldier nuking an obvious "unseasoned," for what was it 2 days? or another supersoldier, that happens to be your "personal" friend."
do you need a dog? or is the cane good enough? |
| Laguna | Monday, August 29, 2011 - 07:18 am
Quote:Of course it doesn't seem "major" to you Laguna..while you sit at "War Level 0" --on all worlds-- selling your Gold Coins for SC$ and USD cash, or whatever else you do with your "free War Protection".
And how is this related to this thread? You seem to have a problem...
Maybe you just need to "relax" and go easy on the "quotation" marks, because you aren't using "words" in their "connotative" "meaning" or "quoting".
The only thing ludicrous here is caring about something that does nothing. But I guess that is politics. : ) |
| CorporatePartner (Little Upsilon) | Monday, August 29, 2011 - 07:55 am
Because, you are trying to "define" what is "major"...and you have no basis to do so. Your country is not being proposed for a "Resolution" to be "banned".
And, also, you are not even a current member of the "Little Upsilon Security Council".
Not to mention, as implied above, you have "no need" to even participate in the "war" part of Simcountry, as you are "permanently protected". Obviously, you wouldn't care who has weapons (you, in fact, sell them in large quantities in space, apparently), so obviously who gets "banned" or not is ir-relevant to your "Empires", and thus, so is your opinion on what is "major" at this point in time. If you want to raise your "Empire" to "War Level 3", and have some legitimacy in this "debate", then many leaders would probably welcome you.
reference:
President Name Membership Term Ends
Zscriptmker 29 September 2011
Simon Dabney 20 September 2011
nix001 15 October 2011
NiAi 31 October 2011
Keto 30 September 2011
Kolenski 1 September 2011
Unappreciated_Customer 15 October 2011
Zrapid Pace 29 September 2011
Marcus 25 September 2011
sm00t 14 October 2011
CorporatePartner 9 September 2011 Cancel Membership
President John Henry Eden 30 November 2011
Tobe Lerone 1 September 2011
trout 31 December 2011
Ummagumma 18 September 2011
So, what you consider "major" or not, at this point in time, and for this vote, is frankly ir-relevant.
Notice that you have not said one word in support of or justifying this "Proposal" by "Unappreciated_Customer". Which, of course, says a lot in and of itself. |
| Unappreciated_Customer (Little Upsilon) | Monday, August 29, 2011 - 08:15 am
This is very laughable lol. Lol! CP. |
| Laguna | Monday, August 29, 2011 - 08:28 am
Yes, it does. It says I don't care about something that does nothing. Amazing!
I find it amusing a newb is telling me, the player who has served the most terms on the Security Council and has been playing even before it was implemented, that my opinion is irrelevant! Well, you Sir, are irrrelevant.
You didn't even know what the resolution did. |
| Josias Jorvick the 3rd (Fearless Blue) | Monday, August 29, 2011 - 08:34 am
i love it |
| Accordion_This (Little Upsilon) | Monday, August 29, 2011 - 11:02 am
Let's not start an argument over this. Laguna has made a valid point. CP has made some valid points. CP, I think Laguna deserves a little bit more respect than what you're giving him; however, Laguna, I think CP might just be a little bit irritated by this situation as a whole, and has said these things towards you without meaning it. |
| Unappreciated_Customer (Fearless Blue) | Monday, August 29, 2011 - 11:38 am
CP made an emotional desperate plea for his own feelings and rationale. He is a security council member so his opinion and vote is welcome. But his plea is riddled with personal and biased overtones. Referencing many personal feelings mixed with tidbits that had absolutely nothing to do with the proposal in any fashion. I have concluded his response was emotional in nature. If my proposal was without merit, the vote would reflect that. But the vote has upheld the point in question because it is a responsible resolution with sound reasoning behind its motivation. |
| James the fair (Little Upsilon) | Monday, August 29, 2011 - 02:31 pm
How do you qualify to become a security member on this game? whats the requirements exactly? |
| Unappreciated_Customer (Little Upsilon) | Monday, August 29, 2011 - 02:36 pm
Make first place, or random selection of active members. |
| FattyMcButterPants (Little Upsilon) | Friday, September 2, 2011 - 04:43 pm
C3Po, you disappoint me deeply, my computer friend. |
