Post Archive

Region: A Liberal Haven

History

We already have a constitution in the forums. It just needs to be amended.

I've also got a new e-mail, so, I should be able to make an account on the regional forums (FINALLY) and put in the amendments.

Can someone give me a link to the forums?

http://users.boardnation.com/~alh

*Sigh* Looks like I've been hacked.

nvm. Happy April Fool's Day.

Haha, good one. "I am the walrus"

Ive been hacked too, watch out guys

Liberalious, it's an NS April fool's joke. Everyone has the 337 bad login attempts, and a message on the board that's always posted 37 minutes ago.

Post self-deleted by Garchyland.

that freaked me out SO much. Oh I love NS :) Happy April Fools everyone!

And I also like Laak's telegram best

So apparently my nation hacked, my nation motto changed to -~==HAXX0RED==~- Choose a better password next time! ha ha.........congrats buddy, it only took;

There have been 337 bad login attempts since your last successful login. Was it worth it?

I'm actually not to pleased about this at all

^^ This is the stupidest thing I have ever read

I am a scared little kitten.

ban me! ban me! ban me! ban me!

Your mother is a llama

Well, that's certainly a valid point of view, and I appreciate you taking the time to address my points. But it doesn't alter the fundamental truth that any politico-economic structure that relies upon the inherent goodness of the populace is destined to inevitably collapse into a more stable, albeit possibly less noble, archetypal structure: namely, capitalism, or some minor variant thereof.

spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam

Moderators are LOSERS!!! Delete me if you dare mods!!

Goodbye everyone! This region is so pathetic I can't stay any longer!

Post by Tubozai suppressed by Garchyland.

Tubozai

SUPPRESS THIS NERDS

Post by Tubozai suppressed by Garchyland.

Tubozai

i am maxx b3rry!111!!!!1111

@Man And Steel You weren't hacked. It's an April Fools' Joke. They changed the way the site looks (like they did with WA categories last year) to make it look like it was hacked.

My guess is they got the idea from last year, since people thought the website was hacked because of the different WA categories.

Happy Apr' Foo's e'erybody. XD

I thought that was quite funny.

I'm so lucky I logged in half-asleep before going to school yesterday. When I say all of the stuff trying to imply that I had been hacked, I don't think I could really comprehend what was happening at the hour. If I had logged on after school, I'd have gotten a pretty worried.

Any other day I wouldn't have done this. XD

Thanks for suppressing that nation, Garchy. I'm glad things like that don't happen too often, but it doesn't make it any less annoying when it does occur.

You forgot the post that Tubozai did before those two with a ton of the "haxxored" RMB messages.

Almaniania (Other nation on NS, not sure if he's known here) would've loved the "I am the walrus ku ku kachoo" message. He's got a walrus on his flag. XD

I deeply think that some people should remove their endorsements from me. I have seven now, which is more than the current Regional Vice Delegate, who, I think, is Derkomia. I'm only two endorsements away from Garchyland now.

In other words, lets wait until elections to decide who should be delegate.

My tiny nation has 5, represent the little guys!

Laak,

I hate having to "suppress" a nation, doesn't seem aligned with our ideals! But it seemed necessary here! Thanks for the endorsement idea Alevuss!

Yes, well, there's a difference between expressing your opinions, and spouting off inane dross on random regions' boards. At least, in my opinion...

Once again agreed with Lack, there is a time and place for everything.

Sweet. Lowest Crime Rate in the region.

In relation to the act currently at vote in the WA, I think that our delegate should vote against the resolution.

I actually voted for the repealing of the original act, because I feel that the points the new resolution makes are valid and important. However, I also feel that removing the original act doesn't do anything to help the cause it's supporting, and that taking away the rights and guidelines put forth in the original law actually puts the nations the new act claims aren't protected by the original at more risk.

I think the WA should allow for the amendment of acts, instead of the repealment of them.

Pillars of Laak> +1

I agree with Lack now and it gives me second thoughts about my voting for its repeal. Perhaps, Laak, you should suggest that amending be possible some time? :)

Hey everyone! I think Pillars raises an interesting point, that if this resolution is repealed than until a new one on neutrality is passed, there is no protection at all. I agree that amendments might in fact be far better (especialy in this case). However, there is currently no way to do that, and so I feel our delagate should vote in favor of repealing resolution 14. The points brought up against it are compelling and although it really does need to be altered rather than scraped, this is currently the way the WA works.

I would certainly consider proposing that to the moderators, though I'd have to figure out how first.

Katherian, it seems to come down to the opinion of whether or not you'd rather have a law that is obviously flawed but gives some protection, or else give up the protection because of the flaws. I'm not sure how Garchy would go about doing this, but I guess it would be whichever side has more supporters (yeas vs. nays) that the delegate would side with? Or else maybe he'll abstain. Or vote his own opinion, which is fine, too. There doesn't really seem to be a way to debate a better position, more like six of one, half dozen of the other.

I rarely vote with my own personal opinion, rarely is there an opportunity to voice my own opinion when I control the votes of so many others. It is a sad reality but also one that comes with the power of the Delegate position. Fortunately for me most nations here vote similiarly to me! In this case it seems as if we have an even number of both yeas and nays. I would personally vote YES to repeal the statute, since I believe that the original statute allows more ambiguity throughout the WA as opposed to helping resolve peace. I believe a new one should be drafted, perhaps that could be a mission of our region?

I move that Garchyland should vote for the Act's repeal. Although my vote conflicts with his, since I have changed my vote, he has a good argument that I can understand and I would also like him to be able to voice his own opinion. If a majority of the region votes against its repeal, his will probably negate that of the those votes. As I have said before, I have not read the Act that is at vote to be repealed. I'm only learning of it through word of mouth.

For now, though, I'm keeping my current vote and may change it with time...

The thing is, this is not as Pillars said about whether or not you'd rather have a law that is obviously flawed but gives some protection, or else give up the protection because of the flaws. It is true that a flawed law is often better than none, however if this one is not repealed it becomes impossible to have proper legislation on this issue.

I do however agree that a method to make amendments ought to be requested (although I seem to recall specifically reading in Q&A that amendments would not be considered) and I certainly agree with Garchyland that a new one should be drafted.

Since we have just about 20 days and dropping, I think we should really think about an election. Instead of having it precisely right on the date, we should hold the election about a week to ten days before the 2 year mark for Garchyland's delegacy. Maybe even earlier. Then, we would change positions on the date of Garchyland's two year anniversary of having delegacy over the region.

Also, since I have a new e-mail, I will be able to make a new account on our regional forums.

Cool, how exactly do the elections work here? Also I've taken a look at resolution 14 as it now stands and made a bit of a rewrite. I know this is almost identical to the original so please don't think I'm trying to plagerize or rip off Charlotte Ryberg in any way. It's just to see what people here think.

Description: ACKNOWLEDGING that one of its roles is to promote world peace;

The World Assembly,

BELIEVES that:

- It is a right of any Nation that is uninvolved in a said war to make a formal claim of Neutrality, and;

- A Neutral Nation must be protected from Belligerent Nations, provided that they observe obligations to justify its neutrality.

DEFINES, for the purpose of this Resolution:

- War as a armed conflict between two or more Nations;

- A Neutral Nation as a nation that has formally declared itself neutral before the World Assembly with regard to a specific state of war or hostility existing between two or more other nations and has not taken part in hostilities and;

- A Belligerent Nation as a nation that is currently involved in said war or a nation that is supporting the armed forces of an existing Belligerent Nation.

1. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not:

a) Harbour, aid or provide for armed forces of any Belligerent Nation or its military allies, including but not limited to: Air, Naval or Territorial Forces (but see §4);

b) Actively or covertly act to assist or support any armed forces or agents of an active Belligerent Nation or its military allies, through force or other means of supporting military action;

c) Conspire to influence the outcome of the said war regardless of the level of secrecy, except where efforts are made to mediate or negotiate a truce or peaceful end to the conflict;

2. MANDATES that Belligerent Nations may not:

a) Invade or occupy a Neutral Nation during the said war

b) Exploit a Neutral Nation for the internment of Prisoners of War, treatment of wounded, storage of dead personnel or other war-related activity without explicit and mutual consent of all involved parties;

c) Enter a Neutral Nation to resource supplies for military operations, such as weapons, personnel, armaments or agents, or;

d) Act in any other way that may threaten the neutrality of a Neutral Nation.

3. MANDATES that Neutral Nations may not, for the duration of the war in question:

a) Directly or otherwise engage in activities to militarily aid Belligerent Nations, and;

b) Acquire goods, domestic or military, obtained by Belligerent Nations through military operations.

4. CONSIDERS the status of neutrality to be invalid and no longer provide protection:

- If any part of §1 or §3 is knowingly and deliberately violated;

- If a nation wishes to end its status of neutrality at any time, or;

- If the war which neutrality is sanctioned on ceases to exist and the WA is satisfied that a similar conflict will not break out for a sensible period of time.

5. RECOGNIZES the right of neutral nations to allow and support Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to operate from, travel through or stage in their territory, for the purpose of delivering Relief Aid to civilian populations and the military wounded, but recommends that casualties receiving humanitarian aid should not be returned to the Belligerent Nation until after the war.

6. RECOGNIZES that any Nation whether part of the World Assembly or not may make a formal claim of Neutrality.

7. RECOGNIZES that Nations may conclude accords on neutrality outside of this resolution provided that all parties involved form an agreement that promotes world peace.

EMPHASIZES that a Neutral Nation may at their discretion, adapt any of the measures above where appropriate to protect themselves from Belligerent Nations outside the scope of the World Assembly, involving but not limited to: Diplomatic efforts and sanctions, or economic/trade sanctions.

APPLAUDS Nations that avoid armed conflicts for the purpose of world peace.

You should ask for some help editing it, since I don't think many people here are experienced in Resolution editing. I would suggest Unibot Ii.

I'm not exactly sure how elections work here. I think we just vote in regional forums. You could check our constitution for more info, maybe.

Hi folks! Browsing regions, I came across yours and it seemed like a good place to hang out for a while. :)

Katherian, I think your revised proposal sounds fine. Though, I'm not very good at imagining situations where the wording could be misconstrued or circumvented, so I'm probably not the best to give an opinion on it. However, what's written sounds clear and concise, and seems to cover all the bases in regards to when and were the rules apply.

And, you're certainly right in trying to create a new law in place of the old. Whether or not we should be able to amend it, we certainly can't at the moment, so the only way to change it would be remove it and start over. Obviously, this is kind of a moot point now that it's been repealed.

Also, welcome Patchouli! I think I'm going to light some incense now.

@Patchouli Islands Welcome, brah. Elections will be soon, so you came just in time. :)

On an off topic, who do you think will be the primary candidate for the Republicans for 2012? If so do you think this person has a chance at making Obama a one term president?

Mitt Romney? Not Palin, Gingrich, Trump, or Paul. Or McCain. I'd rather have Obama than the latter 5. It's pretty clear I think that Obama won't be reelected, no matter what I hope. I don't like Obama very much, but I see him as the lesser of two evils, though, I despise the Democrats, just barely less than the Republicans and Independents, but only because of what they claim to support.

Thanks for the welcome!

Alevuss, I would point you to the election of 1996 after the "1994 Republican Revolution". Obama will win reelection.

I'd agree with Derk. No single Republican candidate so far has nearly as much publicity as many did by this time last election cycle. Hardly any have even announced that they're running, let alone set up a solid position for election. I'd think the only way Obama would lose is if the economy starts diving severely again, which most economists don't seem to think is likely. The healthcare overhaul, this new budget debate, the stabilization/rebound of the economy, and his general reigning-in of our foreign policy actions seem more positive for him than negative.

Hey guys, just wanted to say Ill be gone for a month, so Im resigning from the WA. But my friend Liberalious will be taking my place.

Make sure to put your nation on vacation mode so it doesn't get deleted for inactivity after 28 days.

Also, anyone here participate in the day of silence. Me and a friend of mine tried, but she gave up when someone deeply annoyed her. I failed around 10:00 AM or so, after tripping on my friend's chair. I still insisted I would not talk for the rest of the day, to continue my protest, although I had already failed.

In total, I unintentionally spoke 5 times.

Post self-deleted by Derkomia.

I don't think we want to be associated with Bohemian Grove. I move we decline their overture.

any seconds on Derk's Bohemian Grove move?

And Alevuss I once did the day of silence in High School. I made it until 6 pm, partially because I napped from 3 - 6 pm!

I move that we accept Bohemian Grove's request for embassies.

Should I make a topic in the regional forums for elections?

Personally, I would say don't accept the embassy with Bohemian Grove, too, citing quality versus quantity. They seem largely intent on just getting as many embassies as possible. So, I'd second the decline.

@Laak What is wrong with that? I can understand wanting to have as many embassies as possible. Someone might see the embassy for your region and think "Hey! My beliefs go with that region! I'll join."

That's basically the idea behind embassies. To get as many nations as possible to see your region and come to it. And to show that to regions have the ability to be in instant communication with eachother, regardless of whether or not they have eachother in their dossiers.

Just started trying to learn All of The Lights on piano. Good song.

Also, I move that Garchyland vote for the passing of the Extradition Rights WA Resolution.

I second the WA-related motion.

Post self-deleted by Cubicle Paradise.

@[nation=short]Cubicle Paradise[/nation] It looks like you were banjected from Philosophy 115. I thought that strange since they appear to be a very rational and tolerant region like us. So I looked through the RMB posts. At first I thought it was just a misunderstanding between you and the founder. Then it started looking like you were flaming/flamebaiting, which is a punishable offence by the mods.

I looked even further into their RMB. The founder, [nation=short]Dr George[/nation], did not call Gay lame. He said that it was childish to use the term "gay" as a synonym for "lame" or similar words. IMO, I agree that such use is of poor respect.

It even appeared that it was you using the term in such a way, or trolling to give the impression that you were, in your RMB post: "No, you know what's gay?"

This could still have been a misunderstand that you nor Philosophy 115 caught onto. I'm sure that if you sent a TG to [nation=short]Dr George[/nation], apologizing and explaining to him/her that it was a misunderstanding, you meant no disrespect to anyone, and that if you were given a second chance to live in the region, you would not act as you had in the past as both of you would have a better understanding of eachother.

Or you could just be a troll trollin'.

Post self-deleted by Cubicle Paradise.

Well, I'm rather inclined to believe it as flaming (I'll try to maintain a neutral stance on interpretation, though and treat you no different), judging from the posts the you didn't delete after I made my RMB post. Even if it wasn't flaming, which it can very easily be interpeted as so IMO, it could be interpreted as spam, which doesn't really match up with P115, since they've struck me as a debating region.

Anyway, I'm putting that in the past for now. Welcome to ALH, CP. Let's hope this is a new start for you. Elections will be soon and I intend to run. If you click the Older Messages button enough, you should be able to see my views. I hope that I may have your vote. :) \m/

Greetings liberal brethren! Like you, I enjoy freedom, peace, and prosperity. I also hope to clean up my environment.

Post self-deleted by Cubicle Paradise.

Post self-deleted by Alevuss.

@Nmorodia I remember you! Almost a year ago you came here. Good times. You made this region exciting.

@CP I can't suppress anything. I'm not delegate. :( I meant P115. Nonetheless, I remember reading them earlier today I believe.

But as I said, we'll put that aside.

To be honest I already have freedom and peace and prosperity. I just need to get the environment cleaned up; stop polluting, clean up chemicals, reintroduce extinct species, etc.

This will cost a lot of females, which will mean higher taxes, which will mean we need to either find the political will to shrink our standards of living temporarily...

Or we need to grow the economy to expand the tax-base, but that can produce more pollution which will need to be controlled and cleaned up, which will mean that we need even more females...

It can be a vicious cycle. I think I will just float some government bonds and pay it back slowly to minimize the economic strain and thus the pollution.

Too bad this game does not understand the concept of government debt. And to make matters worse, I think I just outlawed public breastfeeding when I meant to do something a bit different. :(

You could always use NSDossier or NSEconomy to know your deficit if you haven't already used them. We have a massive deficit and could use bringing up our freedom a little more. Peace and environment are great, but apparently

Also, how do you keep freedom up if females are the currency? We have a female leader. What would happen if she went on a diplomatic meeting to Nmorodia?

Welcome Cubicle Paradise. We are very tolerant in this region, we believe that everyone should have a fresh start. However, if you happen to spam or violate any of our regional policies you may be subject to an ejection, ban, or banjection. Otherwise, welcome!

I'll third the move for rejecting Bohemian Grove. Alevuss, A Liberal Haven isn't a region begging people to join or trying to get our name out by putting it everywhere, it's more like that small neighborhood that will welcome anyone who happens to stumble upon it. I align myself more with the view that we should only accept embassies from regions we strongly align with. We wouldn't want to appear desperate now, would we? ;-)

I suppose. But I won't change my vote.

I'm pretty sure I sent you a TG, about this, but you haven't gotten back to me. What will we do about the elections? Will they be done here on the RMB? Or should I or one of us make a thread in the regional forum?

@ Alevuss

Every citizen has the right to vote, freedom of speech, and many other rights, as well as universal health-care and a sturdy safety net.

Obviously, noncitizens don't get the right to vote, like in many other countries. However, in Nmorodia, their other rights are a bit more limited.

And then there is property like pets and females, which are protected by laws but are clearly not citizens. For example, just as you cannot deface a dollar or perform animal cruelty, females are protected from certain abuses. Also, we have subsidized veterinary care and health-care for females.

While other, less free countries, only have organizations like PETA which is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, we also have PETF, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Females. Here in Nmorodia, we have such great freedom and tolerance that they are allowed to protest as many times as they want to, and even air political ads and distribute their propaganda!

Indeed, there is a movement seeking to give some females the right to vote, or at least allow men to vote for their females, as they would be used to buy lobbyists and political ads anyway, and that in the minds of those in this movement is as if they were already voting.

As for diplomats, the Nomadic Peoples of Nmorodia recognizes the benefits of being a fully accepted member of the international community. Female diplomats of course receive the full privileges and immunities given to other diplomats. Of course, with all due respect and no offense meant, diplomats and politicians are unlikely to carry in them much purchasing power nowadays.

This area of diplomacy is an area of great progress for us. We have left behind us the dark days when we would make sure to put an ironing board and an iron into the room of every female diplomat (in case they had some spare time on their hands) and thought we were being very clever to consider their female needs! Those responsible for this lapse of etiquette were punished as was fitting for having caused multiple diplomatic incidents, our protocols were re-written, and we now know that not all foreign females like to iron shirts or make sandwiches! We applied our newfound knowledge to great effect: nowadays, we put female diplomats in rooms with pink and baby-blue colored decorations.

But these changes do not mean that we have abandoned our old sense of hospitality which made Nmorodia a famous place for tourists all over the world! Out of concern for the safety of the diplomats visiting our great land, we still remove books with long words from the rooms of female diplomats. After all, imagine the scandal if a female leader visits Nmorodia, and her head explodes because she read something unsuitable for the fair sex! It would not do at all!

So the key is to give citizens all the rights and freedoms they could want but not recognize the means of exchange as citizens.

May all the gods and daemons in heaven and the very bowels of the earth strike their thunderbolts and hellfire!

Why is there an ad for Ann Coulter in the sidebar of this region?!?

And more importantly, if I clicked on it, would that mean that she has to give NationStates money while getting nothing in return?

Your ways are irrational from an economic standpoint. In Cubicle Paradise, we utilize each of our loyal human resources, whether they be male or female. And they each get to spend their lives working in a box :)

Your land of grey boxes is truly a monument to the triumphs of modern capitalism.

^what he said. Speaking of Capitalism, do you guys think Capitalism is on the decline? or the rise?

In the United States? On the rise. Consumer protections and industry regulations are down as more and more lobbyists and special interest groups take control. Laissez Faire is rearing its ugly head yet again. Hell, the United States is even getting in on the action (see federally issued student loans).

Capitalism may be on the rise, but it also seems to be evolving and "growing up," too. Most consumers now are aware of the environmental and social problems that go along with cheap crap, and I think they are pushing more and more for better quality, production methods, environmental compatibility, etc. in what they buy. Granted, Walmart et. al are still huge, but the green fad is on the rise. The generations after the baby boomers are much more willing to pay more for products they feel were made well and in clean ways. American car companies are moving towards their Japanese competitors in quality and efficiency, clean energy looks to be on the rise (oil from algae, wind farms), and even food is moving towards more natural, less fiddled-with methods of production (organic, locavore). I think consumers are looking to hold companies more responsible for their business and manufacturing morals, and that's definitely having an effect on how companies are competing for their money.

*this is largely aimed at the US. Europe seems to have been functioning this way for awhile.

But is that the start of genuine long-term change, or just a fad of the moment among certain circles?

And are people really buying more environmentally and socially conscious products, or are manufacturers just better at changing the label while changing the label and marketing while leaving as much as possible unchanged?

For example, some people buy "free range" chicken products, but since there is no legal or regulatory definition of what constitutes free ranged, anyone can slap the free range label on chicken products without having to change any of their methods.

Right, same with organic labels. It definitely seemed to start as a fad, but my hope is that people realize the problem isn't going to go away in a year or so.

Post self-deleted by Derkomia.

I really couldn't care less about the plight of chickens, and I'm actually in favor of genetically modified foods if it means that we can get more food to people in need.

Only two more days. *Anxious*

I know, Alevuss....the NFL Draft is a monumental event. ;)

lolololol I didn't even realize that. I don't watch American Football or any sports. XD

Even our chickens live in tiny grey boxes!

You can imagine what a healthy meal it makes. This is why we will legalize cannibalism. After all, it won't make much of a difference, both men and chickens live and work in our tiny grey boxes, they are all high-fat food.

Nice. I've finally gotten a frightening economy and now I'm 3rd most liberal in ALH. Good morning to wake up to. 8)

@ Derkomia "I really couldn't care less about the plight of chickens, and I'm actually in favor of genetically modified foods if it means that we can get more food to people in need."

I don't see what genetically modified food has to do with this issue.

But what I don't understand:

are you saying that the current methods of growing our meat foods does not make them more harmful to our health?

or are you saying that people should eat anything regardless of the effect on their health?

Post self-deleted by Laak.

Nmorodia, I think that was in reference to the organic food fad, meaning the amount of food we can produce for humans outweighs the poor treatment of the animal itself. Moving towards producing food organically doesn't seem to feed as many people as factory farms can. And factory farms, in large part, depend on tweaked and altered plants and animals to produce as much as they do.

I agree with that for the most part. I think if the way we produce meat and plants for human consumption now is the most efficient and productive method available for the amount of humans it has to feed, then that's what we should do, whether or not it seems to turn the animals into products instead of living things. But, I think, as Nmorodia points out, producing meat in factory farms may produce enough chicken, say, in numerical value, but not have enough nutritional value to actual keep the people eating it healthy. As an industry, farming seems stuck in its 50+ year-old ways of producing food, i.e. using chemicals, mass-planting of single crops, etc. How much food we can produce now isn't going to matter if the way we produce it depletes the soil within 10 or 20 years, which is definitely the way the American breadbasket is heading. Organic farming looks like the only viable method to both produce the food we need to survive and prevent the environmental degradation that would ruin our ability to do so in the future.

I am not sure about the supposed efficiency of factory farms. Even if we disregard the health-related issues, look at European agriculture. It is producing so much that farmers waste milk in protests. It's not exactly organic, but they do not have to use the methods of American agriculture to achieve large quantity. And I do have to say that it tastes better than American food, although I can get used to that easily.

With all the advances in the technology to help agriculture, feeding the world will not be a problem in terms of quantity of food produced. The problems will come from the distribution of wealth; there can be enough food for everyone, but the people who don't have the money to afford it won't get fed regardless of whether we use organic or factory farming or any intermediate shade or third way.

And I am generally in favor of both genetically modified crops and selective breeding, as they basically do the same thing. These processes can increase quantity and quality and help the environment. However, I am against things which increase marketability while decreasing quality.

For instance, if you make a genetically modified plant which looks fresh in the supermarket but actually has less quality, because for instance they taste worse or are less nutritious, then what are the effects of that?

People will start to buy those because it looks fresh while the regular produce looks like real produce looks after some time has passed. This will mean that competition and the bankers who provide credit to farmers and actually exercise a great deal of control over the agricultural sector will pressure farmers to produce the new crop, gradually driving the original crop out of the mainstream market.

Of course, people might react to its inferior taste by consuming less of that type of plant. So they will eat less of healthy foods at a time when phenomena such as childhood obesity and regular obesity are already big enough problems as they are. Eventually, the costs of this process will have to be paid by the healthcare system, and I guarantee that no country will welcome completely unnecessary and easily avoidable costs in their healthcare.

And I think that something like this may have happened somewhere, probably with the tomatoes around here. I'm not sure, but nowadays they taste like it, while tomatoes elsewhere taste normal.

PS why do people delete their own posts so many times? With all due respect, there is a preview button.

Preview doesn't really help if you something.

Oh. I think I understand.

Congratulations, Garchy, of having been delegate for two years! From what I can find in the records of our region, you are longest serving delegate in all of ALH's history. The only delegate who has come close is ilyich. (May have done my math wrong on that one. ilyich may have be the longest serving delegate and Garchyland may be second.) :)

Happy Anniversary Garchy !

What is the WA's role in the game? For instance, if the WA passed something and I joined the WA and then I made a decision on an issue which is illegal under the resolution, would I get kicked out of the WA?

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.