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: "New Stategy" page (Kebir Blue)
Next Thread: Border C You may as well Start Over. (Little Upsilon)


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

5_Star_General (White Giant)

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 05:43 pm Click here to edit this post
really? nah dun buy it

Josias (Little Upsilon)

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 05:56 pm Click here to edit this post
i don't care, not any more. every one knows about the stupid messages you can get when selling a country. we needed to hook up on MSN to complete the deal. I looked but never saw you. its really cool to just choose to believe what you want... which i get is whats gonna happen.

so big boy, lets go round or 2 on FB.

5_Star_General (White Giant)

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 06:08 pm Click here to edit this post
i dun have the time no more...i have a life!

you may get your wish one day

Unappreciated_Customer (Little Upsilon)

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 06:35 pm Click here to edit this post
Was conquering the inactives considered round one?

ZentrinoRisen (Little Upsilon)

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 08:17 pm Click here to edit this post
My first suggestion is we keep this thread about the Security Council resolutions and not re-argue the war Josias fought however long ago. Let's not derail this.

I agree with Goth's proposal but I would tweak it to say a "a majority of the security council members OR approval of the general vote."

This would mean more than half security council could approve it and it would not need general voting to approve. But, even if the security council did not approve with more than half, the general vote could override this and approve it anyway by with more votes for than against. (This is not a majority since it would not have to be more than half the eligible voters.)

Unappreciated_Customer (Little Upsilon)

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 08:38 pm Click here to edit this post
Agreed Zen...

Gothamloki (Little Upsilon)

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 08:44 pm Click here to edit this post
I agree with your logic and revision, Zentrino.

predator (Little Upsilon)

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 09:52 pm Click here to edit this post
Something needs to be done for the future im aware we can not turn the clock back but no one can deny this was inapropriate behaivior you can't have things two ways and be fair.

Nix of the security council says he does not want the peacefull exsistance on little upsilion broken when the attack is going to be againts him.

When nix's threatener is attacked in an agresive unjustified war declaration where was his outrage for a peacefull world then he could of started a resolution to stop that war or prohibit both sides from nukes, but he didn't. nukes and wars are perfectly ok.......unless they are directed againts him. on both counts Thats bias and unconsistant.

security council member john henry says he wouldnt of voted to ban the nukes, but he didnt vote . but to johns defence niether did the other 13 members the only one that did vote was the one it involved personely.craftys right none of the security council bothered to vote. why? thats never going to be known if you cant be bothered to vote dont accept a position of responsibility. this is the bigest screw up of a security council ever no offense but its true.

corporate partner was the only security council member trying to adress this and started the proposal to stop the fearless blue type war moe curly and larry started, so i do comend him for seeing the injustice and trying to rectify it. i noticed the voting was huge by the payers and overwelmingly to stop this war. i think it was 55 to 7 by players huge turnout, huge landslide,the security council voted 2 to 1 to stop it only under major presure from players. i wonder if that one vote to not stop it was nix we will never know but once again only 3 security council members voted and from public statements the two voting to stop it were corporate partner and john henry so its obvious who voted no. where are the security council members?

josias is right ak was handing them thier asses at the start of the war somewhat embaressing considering the stooges hid in war protection and only by the sheer weight of overwelming numbers were the paper tigers able to take down a begining player.

so the question is do we really want a fearless blue world here or do the players and security council police players actions as in the real world.

im sure they thought theyd send a warning to the world they were wariors instead theyve painted a giant bullseye on their empires by players who now know they are pirates and stumble clumsily through war manuevers, rogue members of the world looking to seize advantage of any money making oppertunity.

supersoldier has acted like an opertunist first in attacking a non threatening to him country but even where his own fed mates were involved allthough lord lee did a lot of the heavy lifting in one country soldier applied the knockout punch or knockout tickle and reaped the full benifit of the war.all lord lee got out of it was the bad pr and bad reputation and a huge arnements bill.

wendy is correct those three are whats wrong with and hurting this game take that shit to fearless blue, if you could survive in a world where everyones as dirty and cutthroat as you 3 are.

is there going to be any action taken againts them for acting like sadam hussien when he attacked kuwait for no reason? or hitler for invading poland without cause or the japanese for bombing pearl harbour probably not,this is not a normal war of two sides turning up rhetoric and climaxing in a war. its a unprovoked attack on a player that had never attacked another player in his gaming life and three had to jump him at once without warning fighting like a pack of jackles cornering a rabbit while hiding their best countries in war protection like cowards my personel opinion is they should be boycoted for this unjustified act of agresion and if i had a seat on the security council wich its definition is protect the security of countries in the world i would propose such a resolution. id listen to their reasonings and posibly vote for it or againts it but ones thing for sure.....i would vote.

the security council should have veto power over votes perhaps with a majority but there should be a security council thread for proposals to be debated on for 24 hours and then a presidential vote with a security council review of veto. this has exposed a very big issue with lack of interest in thier position and potential for abuse to tilt the game in their own interests.

just my opinion im sure a lot of people will yell at me and tell me shut up because that seems to be the responce when people cant provide a legitimate side to thier argument or a logical angle to debate thier position.

I think billybob and others are corect if you have nukes and the security council says you cant use them, then you should still be able to. nothing could stop you in real life, but a boycot of other nations would follow,or more level headed nations wold bomb your strategic capabilities to hell as well as well as security council sanctions just like in the real world.

and yes i am a long winded diplomat who argues againts injustice and evil tirelesly in hope of a better more perfect future for the people of little upsilion. if youve read all this i thank you as i now yield the podium to the diplomat of the country of............

Billy_Bob_Joe_Bob_Steve (Kebir Blue)

Saturday, August 27, 2011 - 11:42 pm Click here to edit this post
This is actually a very complicated situation. While we all seem to agree that AK47 is an annoying asshat, the discussion has brought up some very important points. Most obviously, the fact that security council resolution on enforcing peace treaties and nuclear warfare bans keep the player from launching an attack, rather than acting as a warning to the player. I think that this debate has also shown that the security council has way too much power, in that they can feel free to pass these resolutions without a vote by presidents. I think that we need to establish measures to ensure that this doesn't happen. IMO, votes on nuclear bans and enforcing peace treaties should bypass the SC vote, as they are vital to all players in the game and the SC members would get to vote in the player vote anyway, and it isn't fair to give the SC a chance to deny them the vote, especially if the resolution personally involves a member of the SC. Since it is SC funds involved in the financial aid, they should get to vote on that. My point is, we need to take measures to make sure that the security council doesn't receive to much power.

Simcountry Introduction