Libertarian Socialist ConfederationBoard

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .36373839404142. . .142143»
LodgedFromMessages
Utarchous

Mitsuko wrote:I voted against as it's a weak implementation of the idea, but I admit that it is very much well-intentioned.

Clause 1a may empower transphobic groups, for instance, to exclude transgender men and women in organizations/groups/clubs that are very much meant for their respective genders. To elaborate, an organization may claim to be exclusive to women, but exclude transgender women on the basis that "you're not a woman!!!". Like... no.

Clause 1b is worded too vaguely. What is a threat to national security? What counts as intentions "to spread, a message of hate directed toward a specific group"? Does this not empower governments to crack down on political dissidents and potentially punishing whistleblowers/anyone that in some way offends the government? What if the government criminalizes protest in some form?

TL;DR This is harmful to ACAB, for instance, but not to Blue Lives Matter. The clause on "national security" would allow authoritarian regimes to suppress any group advocating for reform on the basis that it is a threat to the state or that it is advocating hate of the state.

I too hesitated at the part on national security etc. but it is still a step in the right direction, so perhaps a future amendment or additional legislation to improve it would be more beneficial than voting it down?



The Acclaimed Delegate of Fachumonn

Utarchous wrote:I too hesitated at the part on national security etc. but it is still a step in the right direction, so perhaps a future amendment or additional legislation to improve it would be more beneficial than voting it down?

Even though it is a weak implementation of the idea, it still helps push it forward, so therefore i am voting for, but we could also try to propose a better one. It has a few flaws, but overall its better than the points you pointed out that are bad. (replying to mitsuko and urtachous

Utarchous

The Acclaimed Delegate of Fachumonn

Fachumonn wrote:Even though it is a weak implementation of the idea, it still helps push it forward, so therefore i am voting for, but we could also try to propose a better one. It has a few flaws, but overall its better than the points you pointed out that are bad. (replying to mitsuko and urtachous

also it is passing 70.7% of Wa is for and 1 day 15 hours left 6,000 votes between.

Mitsuko

Utarchous wrote:I too hesitated at the part on national security etc. but it is still a step in the right direction, so perhaps a future amendment or additional legislation to improve it would be more beneficial than voting it down?

Unfortunately, amendments don't work, so we'd have to repeal this and replace it with a new resolution. Fortunately, I know someone who has already written a repeal and plans on submitting once the other person I know has made a suitable replacement. Overall, it doesn't matter much anymore if this passes or fails, and I simply hope I get the time to help out lol

Fachumonn wrote:G goof argument but im still voting for also, the computer would have to come up with that scenario and therefore it would be an issue you could answer in multiple ways, so it would give you the choice to not just automatically do that, also they already kinda had that power. (pretty sure)(dont quote me im prob wrong some of them are kinda guesses im not an expert

GA and issues are separate, wherein the former is automatically implemented, and the latter is distributed to nations, ftr.

Fachumonn wrote:Even though it is a weak implementation of the idea, it still helps push it forward, so therefore i am voting for, but we could also try to propose a better one. It has a few flaws, but overall its better than the points you pointed out that are bad. (replying to mitsuko and urtachous

Eh, fair enough I guess... I guess I was just a little bit annoyed considering this isn't the first time the author submitted seemingly too early, considering their past two (passed) resolutions ended up 1) being repealed and 2) getting a repeal drafted, and it was just annoying to imagine more resolutions needing to be written, but I understand that that is a personal thing, and not many people may feel this way lol



The Acclaimed Delegate of Fachumonn

Mitsuko wrote:Unfortunately, amendments don't work, so we'd have to repeal this and replace it with a new resolution. Fortunately, I know someone who has already written a repeal and plans on submitting once the other person I know has made a suitable replacement. Overall, it doesn't matter much anymore if this passes or fails, and I simply hope I get the time to help out lolGA and issues are separate, wherein the former is automatically implemented, and the latter is distributed to nations, ftr.
Eh, fair enough I guess... I guess I was just a little bit annoyed considering this isn't the first time the author submitted seemingly too early, considering their past two (passed) resolutions ended up 1) being repealed and 2) getting a repeal drafted, and it was just annoying to imagine more resolutions needing to be written, but I understand that that is a personal thing, and not many people may feel this way lol

yeah i get why you said what you did.

The Acclaimed Delegate of Fachumonn

Mitsuko wrote:Unfortunately, amendments don't work, so we'd have to repeal this and replace it with a new resolution. Fortunately, I know someone who has already written a repeal and plans on submitting once the other person I know has made a suitable replacement. Overall, it doesn't matter much anymore if this passes or fails, and I simply hope I get the time to help out lolGA and issues are separate, wherein the former is automatically implemented, and the latter is distributed to nations, ftr.
Eh, fair enough I guess... I guess I was just a little bit annoyed considering this isn't the first time the author submitted seemingly too early, considering their past two (passed) resolutions ended up 1) being repealed and 2) getting a repeal drafted, and it was just annoying to imagine more resolutions needing to be written, but I understand that that is a personal thing, and not many people may feel this way lol

obviously there needs to be more resolutions, but i think what a lot of people might think if they look deep into it is that it is a decent start to what needs to be done

Post self-deleted by Fachumonn.

Old belgae

Hello everybody, is there somewhere a list with every country's ideology, because I think it would be interesting to see which strands of thought are popular in het region and which are more unique.

Utarchous

Old belgae wrote:Hello everybody, is there somewhere a list with every country's ideology, because I think it would be interesting to see which strands of thought are popular in het region and which are more unique.

I believe if you look at the list of residing nations of a region, below each will have Nationstates’ own ideological categories. While these aren’t quite the same as actual ideologies, they give a rough idea where a nation is. The other consideration is the game seems to arbitrarily place nations into categories purely on the decisions made on issues, so they aren’t very accurate.

Acrovos and Old belgae



The League of Luckynia

Old belgae wrote:Hello everybody, is there somewhere a list with every country's ideology, because I think it would be interesting to see which strands of thought are popular in het region and which are more unique.

Hello. In addition to what comrade Utarchous said, this page lists (at the end, on the right) the percentage of nations with each WA category among nations in the region:

http://nsdossier.texasregion.net/main.aspx?region=libertarian+socialist+confederation

It is updated daily, not in real-time, though.

Acrovos and Old belgae



Kassimo

Kassimo wrote:Charter Review

Apologies, it's been a couple of weeks since I last posted on this because I have been busy.

I made a proposal to add a section to the charter establishing some rules through common agreement, for example banning bigotry and other abusive behaviour.

If we establish regional rules, we then need to establish a process for upholding these rules. I would be against establishing a legal/judicial structure, but instead propose that sanctions are specified in advance and carried out by the Safeguard Committee, as described in Part I Section 2 of the revised charter. Sanctions could vary from warnings, to suppressing posts, the temporary and permanent bans.

I also suggest that these rules apply to all communication within the region, i.e. they will apply not only to the RMB, but also to the discord (where we already have moderators), and to telegrams and DMs between region members if an issue is raised (for example if one region member is harassing/abusing another region member via telegram, and the victim makes this public and seeks help, we should be able to intervene by applying the same rules. --- Not advocating that personal communications are monitored!).

Another possibility is to establish a procedure for mediation in a conflict between region members, where a third party can take the role of mediator to resolve a conflict or accusation without resorting to punitive sanctions, in line with ideas of transformative justice.

There are already some rules specified by the website itself and enforced by the game admin/mods, for example content that is obscene, illegal, threatening, malicious, defamatory, or spam is already banned. But I think that, regardless of what we think of those rules, as a libertarian region we should seek to manage these matters through democratic collective agreement rather than resorting to an external and unaccountable authority.

Kassimo wrote:On the matter of which rules will be established, what I would suggest is that we put together a list of proposals for rules and then open a vote in which each rule can either be approved or disapproved.

We previously discussed this matter although the conversation trailed off. Some ideas raised were:

Stroznia shared the rules of a social media group that might give us some ideas:
"1. No bigotry or hate speech. This includes racism, homophobia, transphobia and misogyny/sexism. No classism, ableism or addict shaming. Comments in support of the police will get you banned. No spamming, no threatening or posting personal info/doxxing other members. No harassing members via dm over a group disagreement. No blocking mods. These are all instant ban worthy offenses.
2. Debates get heated in this group and that's not necessarily a bad thing but no personal attacks. You'll get a warning and then probably a mute.
3. We like the hands off mod approach. We're not big on banning, muting, closing threads etc and will only resort to that if the situation is otherwise unmanageable."

I suggested a simple list of rules:
1. No bigotry, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and ableism.
2. Zero tolerance for fascism.
3. No personal attacks, threats, harassment, or doxxing.
4. No spamming or trolling.
5. No sexually explicit content, as minors may be present.

When I proposed this on the discord there was a bit of discussion on whether or not some matters should be "zero-tolerance" or first given warnings.
--"regarding banjections as well, are we okay with banning a nation that expresses fascist, imperialist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic views immediately? I mean, for such a case not to implement a two-strike system or anything?".
--"I think such ignorance should be challenged and the person given a chance to apologise and adjust rather than instantly banned."
--"I understand the intention, but I for one am not up for leaving the door open for bigots to abuse our good faith and leniency.
I do agree that some things will need to be treated with nuance tho"
--"Nuance is essential ofc but leaving it too open could easily be used for abuse and I don’t want people being homophobic or sexist here, creating a hostile and bigoted environment for gay, lesbian, bi comrades etc and then wavering it with an empty apology. I think it’s a bit different to, for example, being ableist, which is a concept that many may not be familiar with and that some words that are very often used can be offensive. I think most people know at least in general terms what’s okay and what’s considered sexist, homophobic or racist. And ofc nuance will be necessary in turn to ensure a friendly environment and so misunderstandings or ignorance aren’t reasons for banjections"

Ecosociala wrote:We should make this a 2-step process. Start with your suggested mediation procedure, and move to sanctions in cases where it fails.

Ecosociala wrote:I agree with your suggested rules, except for #5. There's nothing wrong with sexual expression, regardless of the presence of minors. This is essential to a free and libertarian society. As a region, we are proud to rank near the top in public nudity!

Stroznia wrote:Here is another similar example:

"We encourage discussion on all topics - even if they are ones that would be considered 'difficult'. That said, there are a few basic rules the group intends to uphold.
Content is prohibited if it:
1) Promotes racism, white supremacy, ethnonationalism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, body shaming, antisemitism, islamophobia, colonialism or age discrimination.
2) Sexualizes minors or promotes adults having sex with minors.
3) Trivializes or makes light of rape.
4) Apologizes for police or military brutality, imperialism, eugenics, genocide.
5) Apologizes for state 'socialist' regimes.
6) Espouses TERF or SWERF opinions.
7) While the group endorses a plurality of struggles, identitarian essentialism and one-upmanship is discouraged."

Stroznia wrote:Personally when I think about what makes good mod policy, I tend to emphasize that, if we’re gonna argue, we should try to keep our arguments strictly boundaried towards what people do and say, the relative merits of actions/choices/ideas; and avoid as much as possible any kind of argument around or against what a person is on an identity-level.
That would encompass everything from “no personal attacks” to “no -isms” etc.
In other words a commitment to the idea that a person is never a problem, only problems are problems.
And in general, I’d advocate a policy of not calling for or rooting for harm to come to people. Not just as an ideological or ethical principle (tho part of it) but also as a legal/security culture practice, keeping our asses covered.

We need further input on this matter, from anyone and everyone. We have almost completed our Charter review, at which point we can hold our first elections, so lets focus in on agreeing this last section!

The Libertarian Socialist Confederation operates on five shared principles we see as inseparable from libertarian socialism:

FREEDOM refers to the positive capacity of all individuals and communities for self-determination. We believe that freedom and equality are inseparable, forming the basis for individual development and social wellbeing in the absence of coercive authority or class division. Freedom is an inherent good that can only be strengthened through solidarity and democracy.

SOLIDARITY refers to the belief that all oppressed and exploited people share a common struggle towards freedom. As a principle of social life, we understand that people are interdependent and therefore cooperation is of mutual benefit; we aim to support one another in our efforts to effect the changes we each desire. We stand against marginalisation, prejudice, and all other injustices, for an injury to one is an injury to all.

DEMOCRACY refers to direct, participatory decision-making free from hierarchy, domination, and coercion. Democracy is a social relation between free individuals that should not be reduced solely to institutions or elections. We believe that democracy is always a “work in progress” to be altered or improved by communities according to their needs.

SUSTAINABILITY refers to the recognition that humanity shares a common future with all other living beings and the natural environment we inhabit. The domination and exploitation of nature by humankind must be superseded by an unconstrained harmony that values the beauty and diversity of the natural world, through the decentralisation and integration of communities into their local ecology.

INCLUSIVITY refers to the recognition of the systemic oppression that has historically faced, and currently faces, many groups, including but not limited to women, racial and ethnic minorities, gender, sexual and romantic minorities, those with disabilities, and the working class, all of whom are equally capable of making valuable contributions to our society. We must actively work against the discrimination and exclusion that these groups face by creating a space where all individuals have a voice and feel welcome, safe, and valued.

Part I: Structure

The administration of the Libertarian Socialist Confederation will consist of:

  1. A Governor, who will appoint a Confederal Council in strict accordance with the outcome of regional votes, by empowering member nations as Regional Officers.

    1. The Governor's mandate is renewed or withdrawn each year as described in Part III of this document.

    2. Successors are elected as described in Part III of this document.

    3. The Governor or Successor can be recalled at any time as described in Part IV of this document.

  2. A Confederal Council comprised of 4-12 Councillors.

    1. The council is subdivided into 4 committees each with 3 places. Members of the council may only be on one committee at a time:

      1. Internal Affairs - manages the appearance of the region; promotes regional culture and organises activities. [Appearance, Communications, Polls]

      2. Foreign Affairs - manages diplomacy on the world stage; opening and closing embassies; ambassador to embassy regions. [Embassies, Communications, Polls]

      3. Outreach - manages recruitment; welcomes and supports new members and encourages participation. [Communications, Polls]

      4. Safeguard - manages regional defence; moderates regional communications according to the rules established in Part IV of this document. [Border Control, Communications, Polls]

    2. Upon election, committees are granted a mandate to act on their own initiative and in the best interests of the region.

      1. While not requiring a vote on every matter, committees are encouraged to seek input and approval from the region where appropriate, utilising the RMB, discord, and polls.

      2. The Safeguard Committee is expected to strictly adhere to the procedures for moderation established in Part IV of this document, and must seek the democratic approval of the region for any military organisation and policy.

      3. Each committee must publish a public report, detailing their activities, half way through their term, and at the end of their term.

      4. If any member of the region disagrees with an action or decision taken by a committee, they can call for a repeal vote at any time. A repeal vote will run for 48 hours and passes with a simple majority. If the repeal passes, the committee must reverse the act in question. Any other councillor, or the Governor, may apply the repeal if there is any delay or defiance from the committee in question.

      5. A councillor or committee can be recalled at any time as described in Part III of this document.

    3. Each committee can take an unlimited number of volunteers to assist with their efforts, for example the Foreign Affairs Committee may set up a team of ambassadors to embassy regions. There should be no barrier to entry for such teams.

    4. The Governor and the WA Delegate may not also be members of this council.

  3. A non-executive World Assembly Delegate, chosen by a plurality of endorsements.

    1. Any WA member nation may put themselves forward for the role and encourage others to endorse them, but all WA members remain free to endorse whoever they wish.

    2. The WA Delegate must consult the region on each WA resolution-at-vote, and vote in line with the majority position.

      1. In the case of equal votes for and against the resolution-at-vote, the WA Delegate may cast the tie-breaking vote at their own discretion.

      2. Any combination of the regional message board, polls, and discord may be used to confer with the region.

    3. The WA Delegate may approve WA proposals at their own discretion.

    4. The WA Delegate may act as facilitator for the Confederal Council, if requested.

  4. A team of Discord Moderators will be elected through the following process to uphold the rules established in Part IV of this document:

    1. Any member nation in the regional discord may volunteer themselves for the role of moderator.

    2. Upon volunteering, a vote will be started in the appropriate discord channel by any standing moderator.

      1. The vote will remain open for 7 days, during which member nations may vote to approve or disapprove of the candidate.

      2. The candidate will be accepted as a moderator if they gain more approvals than disapprovals.

    3. Any member nation can propose that a moderator be recalled at any time.

      1. A recall vote will be started in the appropriate discord channel by any standing moderator not subject to recall proceedings.

      2. The vote will remain open for 5 days, during which members nations may vote for or against the recall.

      3. A recall vote passes by a simple majority (50% +1).

      4. A moderator subject to recall proceedings will have their moderator masking removed for the duration of the vote, to be reinstated if the recall is rejected.

    4. A moderator will continue in their role until either they resign or are recalled.

Part II: Council Elections

The Confederal Council will be elected every 3 months through the following process.

  1. The Governor will open a nomination and campaigning period, for all committees of the Confederal Council, that will last for 7 days.

    1. Nations can nominate themselves, or nominate others, for any one of the committees.

    2. If nominated by another nation, nominees must confirm their candidacy within 3 days.

    3. During this period, candidates can make the case for why they should be trusted with the role, release a platform, and answer questions from other members of the region.

    4. If there is competition for places on a committee then the candidates may participate in a formal debate, respectfully and in good faith.

  2. After the nomination period has closed, the Governor will organise a vote for each committee, running for 5 days, to determine which candidates will be approved to the council.

    1. If there is no competition for places on a committee then a simple approval vote will be held.

      1. Nations may vote to approve, approve under reserve, or disapprove of each candidate.

      2. To be elected, a candidate must receive more approvals (unreserved) than disapprovals.

    2. If there is competition for places on a committee then a ranked choice vote will be held.

      1. Nations will rank the candidates in order of choice, with ‘1’ being their favourite candidate, and so on.

      2. Seats on each committee will then be filled using the Droop Quota, with votes transferred to the next preference each time a candidate is elected or eliminated in the process. A ranked choice vote application may be used instead of manual calculation.

  3. All member nations are guaranteed the right to vote and stand for election.

Part III: Governor Approval and Succession Elections
  1. Once per year the Governor will be subject to an approval rating vote to renew their mandate.

    1. A member of the Confederal Council will set up a poll in the region, asking members to approve, disapprove, or abstain, in regards to the current Governor continuing in the role. The vote will be open for 5 days, and the results announced by the council.

    2. If the Governor gains a positive approval rating (more approvals than disapprovals) then their mandate is renewed for another year.

    3. If the Governor gets a neutral or negative approval rating (more disapprovals than approvals, or an equal number) then their mandate is withdrawn and the Governor recalled.

  2. When a Governor abdicates, ceases to exist, or is recalled, the Successor will automatically replace the position.

  3. When a Successor resigns, ceases to exist, is recalled, or becomes Governor, a Governor Succession Election will be triggered.

  4. A new Successor will be elected through the following process.

    1. The Governor will organise the election, count the votes, and announce the results.

    2. A nomination period will run for 7 days.

      1. Nations can nominate themselves, or nominate others, for the position.

      2. Nominees must confirm their candidacy within this period.

    3. Following nominations, a simple approval vote will held for 5 days. Nations may vote to approve, approve under reserve, or disapprove of the candidate.

      1. If there is only one candidate, they will be elected be a simple majority (50% +1) of approvals (unreserved).

      2. If there is more than one candidate, the nation with the highest approval rating (approvals minus disapprovals) will be elected. If multiple nations are tied for highest approval rating, then a second round of voting will be held for the tied candidates only. If no candidates gain a positive approval rating (more approvals than dissapprovals) then the election will be restarted including a new nomination period.

    4. Once the new Successor is elected, the Governor will appoint them to the position.

Part IV: Recall

  1. If at any point a member nation believes that a Councillor should be removed from the Confederal Council, or a whole committee replaced, they can:

    1. Publicly or privately request a referendum to recall that councillor or committee.

      1. The referendum will be set up by any member of the regional administration, except those subject to the recall.

      2. The referendum will last for 5 days, during which every member nation can vote for or against the recall.

      3. A recall referendum passes by a simple majority (50% +1). The executive will dismiss the councillor(s) recalled.

      4. If a committee is recalled, or if a recalled councillor is the only one on a committee, a new election for that committee will be held.

    2. Wait until the next election.

  2. If at any point a member nation believes that the Governor or Successor should be removed from their position, they can publicly or privately request a referendum to recall them.

    1. The referendum will be set up by any member of the Confederal Council.

    2. The referendum will last for 5 days, during which every member nation can vote for or against the recall.

    3. A recall referendum passes by a simple majority (50% +1).

    4. If the Governor is recalled, they must abdicate their position.

    5. If the Successor is recalled, they must resign their position or can be removed by the Governor.

Part V: Rules

  1. A free and equal confederation must be built on mutual respect, honesty, trust, and solidarity. Members of the confederation are therefore encouraged to:

    1. Take responsibility for maintaining such an environment, for example by tempering a discussion that is becoming malignant;

    2. Remain mindful of their own language and behaviour.

  2. The following rules have been collectively agreed and apply to all regional communications, including but not limited to the RMB and discord:

    1. No bigotry.

    2. No platform for fascism.

    3. No personal abuse, defined here as intentionally hurting or harming another person, such as harassment or doxxing.

    4. No spamming or trolling.

    5. No pornographic content.

    6. Don’t promote, trivialize, or defend sexual abuse and violations of consent.

    7. No genocide denial.

    8. No content that apologizes for police or military brutality, imperialism, or eugenics.

  3. From commitment to democratic agreements, and self-discipline, members of the confederation are expected to abide by these rules. When these rules are broken however, the Safeguard Committee and discord moderators will act as follows:

    1. If it is a matter of honest misunderstanding or error (as determined by the councillor or moderator), the person in question is to be informed of the rules and the issue with their behaviour sensitively explained.

    2. Otherwise, a first warning will be given, and, at the discretion of the councillor or moderator, posts may be suppressed.

    3. If the person in question has already been given a first warning, they will be banned from the region and/or discord, and posts may be suppressed.

  4. In the case of a dispute between two or more members, the Safeguard Committee or discord moderators will invite the relevant parties to an arbitration process.

    1. The councillor or moderator will either put themselves forward to act as neutral arbiter, or request any other member of the confederation to volunteer for the role.

    2. The arbitration process is voluntary, but the disputing members must agree to participate in the process in good faith if they do so.

    3. The nominated arbiter must be accepted as a neutral third party by all those participating in the process; otherwise a different arbiter must be found.

    4. There is no set procedure for the arbitration process, which will be prepared by the accepted arbiter on a case by case basis. However, documentary guidance and example procedures will be available for the arbiter to draw upon.

Part VI: Revisions

  1. This charter may be changed through a democratic referendum at any time.

    1. When a change to the charter is proposed, 5 days must be given for discussion of the proposal.

    2. This will be followed by 5 days voting, during which member nations may vote for or against the proposal.

    3. The referendum will pass by a two-thirds majority.

The following nations approved the above charter in a democratic referendum concluding on the 7th of June 2021:


Read dispatch

Post self-deleted by Fachumonn.

Kassimo

I have a couple of comments:

Firstly, I found some online resources for conflict resolution, that will be useful for addressing tensions and arguments rather than just sanctioning those who get into arguments:
https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/conflictbooklet.pdf
https://rhizomenetwork.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/principles_of_mediation.pdf
https://rhizomenetwork.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/stages_of_mediation.pdf
https://www.crnhq.org/cr-kit/

Regarding some of the ruleset examples shared, I think we should only exclude explicitly abusive or discriminatory language and behaviour, and not a laundry list of opinions we find unacceptable. For example, I think that banning racism is necessary to create an environment in which all people are treated with dignity and equality, and preventing exclusionary, oppressive relations developing in our midst; but, for example, "comments in support of the police" or content that "apologizes for state 'socialist' regimes" shouldn't be banned. The latter should be challenged, and if the person putting forward such views continues to do so it should be made clear that they are not welcome in the region, perhaps simply mocked or ignored, but not banned. I make an exception on this for fascism, which I think should be outright excluded, on the basis of the "no platform for fascism" principle, and with respect for the ongoing conflict between fascists and antifascists on NationStates (by which I think fascists should more or less be treated as enemy combatants).

In regards to actually formulating something for the charter, I think we need to include a few aspects: a guideline for conduct (for example encouraging people to treat each other with respect, employ the principle of charity in debates, etc.); a set of rules that all agree to; a process for dealing with ignoring guidelines or breaking rules (preferably not resorting immediately to sanctions); strict instructions to the Safeguard Committee and discord mods for applying these processes; a process for conflict resolution and/or accountability process; encouraging everyone to contribute to creating and defending a healthy environment, keeping each other in check, not deferring all responsibility to committees or mods.

Stroznia, Libertarian Australia, Utarchous, Red green and black, and 3 othersEcosociala, United south german communes, and Fachumonn

Post self-deleted by Fachumonn.

The Acclaimed Delegate of Fachumonn

I want to bring up the new security council. I initially voted for, but i would be open to changing it if someone wants to make the argument against it.

Red green and black

Fachumonn wrote:I want to bring up the new security council. I initially voted for, but i would be open to changing it if someone wants to make the argument against it.

Is there something specific you'd like to say about it?

The Acclaimed Delegate of Fachumonn

Red green and black wrote:Is there something specific you'd like to say about it?

not really just no one was talking about it

The Acclaimed Delegate of Fachumonn

Fachumonn wrote:not really just no one was talking about it

Also it says you undedcided. Bye i have to go to sleep for now tho

Red green and black

Fachumonn wrote:Also it says you undedcided. Bye i have to go to sleep for now tho

You've brought this up before and left the region before you could be notified of my answer. I explained it nonetheless. You just have to find it a couple of pages back.

Utarchous

The Acclaimed Delegate of Fachumonn

Red green and black wrote:You've brought this up before and left the region before you could be notified of my answer. I explained it nonetheless. You just have to find it a couple of pages back.

ok

The Acclaimed Delegate of Fachumonn

Ok yeah

The Acclaimed Delegate of Fachumonn

New Wa proposal out. I think the reason everybody voting against it because itĺl ruin their economies? Idk but besides our region people are strongly against this. Personally don´t see the problem.

The Olympian Gympublic of Benilandia

Fachumonn wrote:New Wa proposal out. I think the reason everybody voting against it because itĺl ruin their economies? Idk but besides our region people are strongly against this. Personally don´t see the problem.

Whatever is for preserving environment, I vote for. It is most important thing to me.

The Acclaimed Delegate of Fachumonn

same

Acrovos

Fachumonn wrote:New Wa proposal out. I think the reason everybody voting against it because itĺl ruin their economies? Idk but besides our region people are strongly against this. Personally don´t see the problem.

Do WA issues affect our nations in any way besides a telegram? I see no evidence they cave our stats.

«12. . .36373839404142. . .142143»