WintreathBoard

Wtf is going on

New auraxis wrote:

If I could go back in time and kill every single Bolshevik. (With an m60)

Is that a question or a statement?

French Albania wrote:

Delightful.
I too fantasize about killing people merely for holding a particular set of beliefs, which is why I propose the wholesale slaughter of Protestants for their heresy against the Catholic Church.
And if you argue that's different, why? Because one group killed lots of people in living memory, while the one I'm talking about only killed lots of people centuries ago?
I can't even justify it through a consequentialist lens, since if 'averting the negative consequences of communism' was your goal, you could much more easily achieve it with 'killing Karl Marx before he wrote The Communist Manifesto, so clearly you just want an excuse to butcher vast quantities of people.
Notice how when people talk about stopping Nazis, they don't say 'I would travel back in time to kill every Nazi', they say 'I'd travel back in time to (insert date) to kill Hitler'?

What if I went back in time and killed the first Human?

Cote azure wrote:

What if I went back in time and killed the first Human?

Which sort of time travel? If it were to be Back to the Future type you would cease to exist. Also, what would define human? Neanderthals or Devinsovians could have replaced Homo Sapiens. You could just end up creating Neanderthal Hitler.

But If you killed the first human you yourself would cease to exist and therefore you could never have killed the first human and you are still alive but you killed the first human so now you cea...

Dear WA nations,

The current resolution at vote in the General Assembly, Debtor Voting Rights, should not be passed. It's yet another pretty rude effort by Imperium Anglorum. Here's why:

This is clearly I.A. just trying to add another "We passed this!" to its name.
Despite criticizing people for "badge-hunting", IA is clearly doing the same. IA shows its hypocritical attitude here by trying to pass a poorly thought-out resolution using its cronies and the WA elite.

I.A. mocks the WA in a particularly snarky way.
I.A. has been criticized in the past for writing proposals that the majority of the World Assembly doesn't understand. Now it tries to pass a one-line resolution. That's fairly insulting, if you ask me.

This resolution is fundamentally flawed.
If a man is incarcerated on the sole count of his debts, he is, in fact, incarcerated. His voting privileges are denied of him given his imprisonment. If a member nation is now suddenly barred from "invoking a person's debts as reason to deprive that person of the right to vote," what happens to the incarcerated man? Is he allowed to vote while his inmates are not? He must be, since his debts can't deny him the right to vote and the only reason he's in prison is because of his debts. Or, alternatively, is he set free, completely undermining the criminal justice system and societal order? Or, is he not actually afforded a vote because he's in jail and the criminal code is upheld - but he's only in jail due to his debts, so then what must happen is...

In short: this resolution is obnoxious, disrespectful and vague. It does NOT deserve your vote, and neither does Imperium Anglorum, who should, if anything, apologise to the WA for playing this silly little game.

Thank you for your time,

The Elector Menshchikov Alexei Igorevich
Sergioso

Sergioso wrote:

Dear WA nations,

The current resolution at vote in the General Assembly, Debtor Voting Rights, should not be passed. It's yet another pretty rude effort by Imperium Anglorum. Here's why:

This is clearly I.A. just trying to add another "We passed this!" to its name.
Despite criticizing people for "badge-hunting", IA is clearly doing the same. IA shows its hypocritical attitude here by trying to pass a poorly thought-out resolution using its cronies and the WA elite.

I.A. mocks the WA in a particularly snarky way.
I.A. has been criticized in the past for writing proposals that the majority of the World Assembly doesn't understand. Now it tries to pass a one-line resolution. That's fairly insulting, if you ask me.

This resolution is fundamentally flawed.
If a man is incarcerated on the sole count of his debts, he is, in fact, incarcerated. His voting privileges are denied of him given his imprisonment. If a member nation is now suddenly barred from "invoking a person's debts as reason to deprive that person of the right to vote," what happens to the incarcerated man? Is he allowed to vote while his inmates are not? He must be, since his debts can't deny him the right to vote and the only reason he's in prison is because of his debts. Or, alternatively, is he set free, completely undermining the criminal justice system and societal order? Or, is he not actually afforded a vote because he's in jail and the criminal code is upheld - but he's only in jail due to his debts, so then what must happen is...

In short: this resolution is obnoxious, disrespectful and vague. It does NOT deserve your vote, and neither does Imperium Anglorum, who should, if anything, apologise to the WA for playing this silly little game.

Thank you for your time,

The Elector Menshchikov Alexei Igorevich
Sergioso

You just quoted a telegram I got.

New auraxis wrote:

If I could go back in time and kill every single Bolshevik. (With an m60)

My Great great grandfather was a cossack fighting the reds

Clarcia wrote:

You just quoted a telegram I got.

I do not really care if nations with debtors' prisons are inconvenienced by a common-sense WA resolution so the "for" vote in my main stands! Based on what I have seen, the mass TG is not doing anything for the "against" side. In Forest, some nations that initially voted "against" switched their votes.

This sentiment seems fairly common:

Canaltia wrote:

Well I, along with many of you I'm sure, just got a campaign telegram talking about how the resolution is "mocking the W.A.", and I.A. should apologize for playing this silly little game. I'm unsure as to whether the game is the W.A., or all of NS, but either way, I am changing my vote to FOR to spite a pretentious and insulting telegram author.

People do not like being told what to do!

Obsturmt wrote:

Soviet high command deserved an axe butchered 2,000,000 of my countrymen...

'High command' is different from 'everybody who was part of the party, or depending on definition, even merely an adherent of the ideology'.
Determining that those directly responsible for mass suffering deserve some form of punishment is distinct from determining that everybody who thinks a certain way deserves to be punished.

so far so good for my roleplay

My rp will be modern tech and will take place on earth