Simcountry Home   Simcountry Documentation   Simcountry Documentation   Simcountry Terminology
online games, multiplayer games
bullet Simcountry is an Online Digital World where you are the President of a country.
bullet No download needed!
What is Simcountry?
Beginners Info
What is Simcountry?
| | | | |
Previous Thread: Raiding active players (Little Upsilon)
Next Thread: CEOs wanted in my 0% tax countries (Kebir Blue)


Simcountry: Simcountry Bulletin Board  DISHONEST SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THEIR IN GAME ALLIES (Little Upsilon)


Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 09:06 am Click here to edit this post
It does seem rather odd that a security council member can sttart and pass a resolution by himself for a mater that benefits only himself. its againts both moral and legality. It would seem that such a self serving use of security council power would call for said members imediate dismisle from the security council. Its also interesting that no other member of the council bothered to vote wich sugests they onsidered the resolution silly and unfair as well or just not important enough to bother to vote on. In adition the said member prohibited a president vote on this matter by restricting it to security council voting ( his lone vote ) as well.

I personaly checked to see if AK47 was poluting nieghborly countries with nuclear fallout , he was not, tons of players use tactical nukes all the time without repurcusions.

therefore i find no reason as to why he was prohibited from using them when he was being allowed he actualy had more war damages to the 4 major empires that ganged up on his single empire and apeared to be inflicting heavy damage upon them and winning the war.

this definatly wasnt right for the reason stated in the first paragraph so id like to propose two resolutions to be considered by security council members.

1. that the originater, passer and restricting a presidential vote on the security council resolution member be remooved imediatly.

2 that the pre war borders be reastablished or at the very least peace is forced between all waring parties at once

why didnt mix or nix or the king or whoever he is ban all nuclear weapons on lu instead and let more than himself vote on it, this wreaks of inpropriaty and for the security council to maintain any kind of public respect or percieved fairness this needs to be dealt with in any or all of the above measures.

if you cant recognize that submiting a self serving resolution being the only member to vote for it and restricting a presidential vote so it can not be overturned is wrong then im afraid we need all new security coucil members.

Homerdome (Fearless Blue)

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 09:42 am Click here to edit this post
OK enough.. last time AK47 posted was 2 days ago. The resolution past.. one voted.. ONE, nukes dont win wars anyway, he would of lost regardless. His own fault, 160 mill pop tasty treats no WP, No defence, and shooting his mouth off. Get over it already.


Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 11:21 am Click here to edit this post
Well, "predator", the whole point was that there are two --different-- things happening. Try reviewing the, admittedly scattered, posts again, but check the one with a title about "Resolution of Security Council" and there, already explained basically the entire situation.

Another Security Council member said "water under the bridge" and that's basically it.

Unappreciated_Customer (Little Upsilon)

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 04:55 pm Click here to edit this post
Once again 3 players that are at least moderately seasoned in the war game gang up on a n00b player. All three of you are what is wrong with this game. I don't care how many of you think he deserved that. He didn't.

Gothamloki (Little Upsilon)

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 05:22 pm Click here to edit this post
Hold on. It's true the particular issue with AK47 was resolved, but the points Predator makes about the potential abuse of security council resolutions are serious (especially to members not on the council) and should be addressed accordingly.

EVEN IF, nix's intentions were not nefarious and were justified, the ability of a single member on the security council to propose and pass a binding resolution by him- or herself alone and then not allowing a general vote IS inappropriate procedure. Regardless of the reasons, etc. It demonstrates a HUGE potential of abuse. And until it's addressed destroys any confidence or respect the security council deserves.

I agree with Predator on his first proposal (as the second issue is currently being addressed), but propose the following (slightly more formal) language:


Any and all binding security council resolutions restricting the use of weapons or any particular type of weapon requires the approval of a MAJORITY of ALL security council members, and the approval of a majority of the general assembly within a time frame established in the resolution.


This will demonstrate that the security council and not just a single member of that council believes the use of weapons should be restricted. (There's no reason why security council members cant approve or reject in a timely manner, as they are theoretically members who login frequently.) The time restricted general vote insures the rest of us a chance to check any abuse or confirm the restriction is necessary within enough time to make it effective.

Josias (Little Upsilon)

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 05:29 pm Click here to edit this post
i agree with wendy on this one. ak47 didn't really need this lesson... not to this degree. its one of the things wrong with the player base. when "seasoned" players seem to think that newbs are suppose to be subordinate. and will force the issue.

things like this only turn newbs off. you wanted to teach him some respect? why'd it take three of you? and why did the most experienced one hide all his good countries in protection? and why'd you have to spend days nuking him? jeese, not to mention, if what happened here was made clear... these "seasoned," players would be rather embarsed. that they attacked some one they knew only had nukes to fight with, and had poorly prepaired their offence and defence...

yea, they'd eventually win. but had ak47 been a tad bit more experienced, this would have gone the other way. and infact, if it wasn't for his newness, these three probably wouldn't have made the attempt. its like picking on people as they are getting out of the short bus and putting on their helmets and knee pads...

anyways. i've been quiet because i don't have a horse in this race. i'm just glad that some one said what wendy said.

this event, sadly, is proof that war levels are important. these guys should have been in the 4-5 range of war levels, not the level three (min pvp level) this newb obviously fits in.

Blueserpent (Fearless Blue)

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 05:30 pm Click here to edit this post
While i agree with the sec council comments above by gothamloki and predator...the war and the vote are 2 seperate issues.

Nix started a vote because of his own conflict with ak47

the 3 stooges just saw an open country with a lot of swag

5_Star_General (White Giant)

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 05:37 pm Click here to edit this post
lol Josias.........yet u dun mind taking all my countries and wiping me from the game when you knew i was inactive and couldn't fight back... tit

Josias (Little Upsilon)

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 05:40 pm Click here to edit this post
yep, i did that, but i did try my best to return them. its not my fault that i was unable to

Simcountry Introduction