Post Archive

Region: Brebina

History

The Krieg Army wrote:Well, can you ask before you delete it?

I didn’t ask because I was going to delete it whether you wanted me to or not, but sure next time ill ask

The Krieg Army

Salad Catia wrote:The Krieg Army and Keltionialang… I see you engaging in a bit of corruption. No promises to you Krieg for your position, but supporting the reforms will benefit the region as a whole, and that includes you.

I mean I'll campaign for him, and attempt to convince others. I literally cannot make him MoD myself.

I have withdraw from the vote.

The Krieg Army wrote:Nvm then.

Keltionialang don’t be too worried about getting supporters. A coup can be held easily here, but lets just hope it won’t come to that.

The Krieg Army

Salad Catia wrote:Keltionialang don’t be too worried about getting supporters. A coup can be held easily here, but lets just hope it won’t come to that.

Alright. I just thought having 5/7 ROs would be overwhelming. I guess 4 is enough, as Soviolisis is never active and Vorsialono is neutral, I believe.

Salad Catia wrote:Keltionialang don’t be too worried about getting supporters. A coup can be held easily here, but lets just hope it won’t come to that.

Why did you quote me?

The Krieg Army wrote:I have withdraw from the vote.

Good for you, but frankly I don’t care because it seems all you want is a government position, and you don’t seem to genuinely care about the region itself.

Hermitius, The Krieg Army

The Krieg Army wrote:Why did you quote me?

So you would get pinged

Salad Catia wrote:Good for you, but frankly I don’t care because it seems all you want is a government position, and you don’t seem to genuinely care about the region itself.

I do care about the region!

I made a whole poll asking people if they would fight for this region incase of a war!

11 people voted yes, including me!

The Krieg Army wrote:I do care about the region!

I made a whole poll asking people if they would fight for this region incase of a war!

11 people voted yes, including me!

Thats nice.

Sup brebina

The Krieg Army

Peoples Of Waskar wrote:Sup brebina

Hi.

Peoples Of Waskar

The Krieg Army wrote:Alright.

Nice

The Krieg Army

Salad Catia wrote:Also Gorutimania your 1 sentence response to my literal essay of a telegram was quite disappointing :/

I literally had just woken up at that time.

Salad Catia wrote:Also Goutimania your 1 sentence response to my literal essay of a telegram was quite disappointing :/

When the summie:

I think Venezuela is about to do the funni to Guyana

Retetia wrote:When the summie:

Don't let bro Cook 💀

will be gone for a bit, going to a dog park

The Krieg Army

Peoples Of Waskar wrote:Don't let bro Cook 💀

nah let him cook

Keltionialang wrote:will be gone for a bit, going to a dog park

N O

Keltionialang wrote:will be gone for a bit, going to a dog park

Ok.

Gorutimania wrote:nah let him cook

Do you think I think Venezuela is about to do the funni to Guyana?

Keltionialang wrote:will be gone for a bit, going to a dog park

Bye noob.

The Krieg Army wrote:Do you think I think Venezuela is about to do the funni to Guyana?

Do you think?

GTA VI

Is coming out in february😎

statement by misinformation inc.©

Hermitius, The Krieg Army

Retetia wrote:When the summie:

Is this not your first nation on nationstates?

I forgot I can use my phone for ns, oopsies

Keltionialang wrote:I forgot I can use my phone for ns, oopsies

You don't have to be active all the time, of course.

Stranarei wrote:You don't have to be active all the time, of course.

I know, I won't really be responding to anything, but I can still watch the rmb

Keltionialang wrote:I know, I won't really be responding to anything, but I can still watch the rmb

Ok. If you want.

Democratic Vorsialiono wrote:I Want to be in the central part With my color red

Uh...the color I have your territory on the map in looks more like dark orange/orange-red to me. Is that okay?

Democratic Vorsialiono

I just realized Mhaul was talking about one of MY posts in that "why I hate policing TRR's RMB" dispatch! Wow! The heights I have reached!

Keltionialang, The Krieg Army

dont want to clutter the rmb so gonna put a spoiler tag for all this

[spoiler] to give more explanation to my pervious post i think that removing rule 4, removing the ban on triple posting, reducing the justice system (i know rich coming from the guy who thinks the supreme court is unneccesary) and removing speaker of the house all suck as reforms

Keltionialang wrote:I'm not really sure what I expected from the person who would be cut off from the government by the reforms.

i dont get how i would be cut off from the goverment by these reforms

Salad Catia wrote:cope because they are for your own good

nah some suck some are good though

Stranarei wrote:If it's any consolation, you could have a chance of being recruitment minister when we stop being a frontier.

well thank god for that

[/spoiler]

to give even more reasoning

1. triple posting is spam so we need the ban

2. rule 4 allows an unbiased government if we are biased less people will come

3. The justice system is important for deciding things so we need that and a party leader and presiding officer for government decisions is important

Hermitius wrote:dont want to clutter the rmb so gonna put a spoiler tag for all this

[spoiler] to give more explanation to my pervious post i think that removing rule 4, removing the ban on triple posting, reducing the justice system (i know rich coming from the guy who thinks the supreme court is unneccesary) and removing speaker of the house all suck as reforms

i dont get how i would be cut off from the goverment by these reforms

nah some suck some are good though

well thank god for that

[/spoiler]

2. You wouldn't get to be recruitment minister (for a while at least)

4. Just a chance. Ig it depends on how big we want our region to be.

Stranarei wrote:1. Why?

2. You wouldn't get to be recruitment minister (for a while at least)

3.

4. Just a chance. Ig it depends on how big we want our region to be.

my message above explains why, how come, man, I made the position, and isn't having a big region a perk or even the reason for having a region? don't we want different people to come and see if our opinions or tastes can be different?

Stranarei

Hermitius wrote:to give even more reasoning

1. triple posting is spam so we need the ban

2. rule 4 allows an unbiased government if we are biased less people will come

3. The justice system is important for deciding things so we need that and a party leader and presiding officer for government decisions is important

Kind of agree about point 3 in theory, but Soviolisis isn't very active so I think we should see how it goes. Next elections are in February so if we feel we need an assistant justice, we could re-implement one then.

Stranarei wrote:Kind of agree about point 3 in theory, but Soviolisis isn't very active so I think we should see how it goes. Next elections are in February so if we feel we need an assistant justice, we could re-implement one then.

if the justice system was ya know at all used then the reform would not be needed a supreme court of multiple people would help Brebina

Hermitius wrote:to give even more reasoning

1. triple posting is spam so we need the ban

2. rule 4 allows an unbiased government if we are biased less people will come

3. The justice system is important for deciding things so we need that and a party leader and presiding officer for government decisions is important

1. No, if the messages have value, it's not spam.

2. Rule 4 prevents an unbiased government, it prevents government figures from having to listen to other opinions.

3. I literally do not care about the justice system

Oh, also, until January 16th, no mention of Ventura aside from weekly/daily reports are allowed, and those reports will only come from me.

Keltionialang wrote:1. No, if the messages have value, it's not spam.

2. Rule 4 prevents an unbiased government, it prevents government figures from having to listen to other opinions.

3. I literally do not care about the justice system

1. then say in some circumstances you wont suppress it but still ban it

2. "We allow all opinions, besides hateful ones. So conservatives, moderates, and liberals can live peacefully."

and

"In addition to number 4, arguments on political or other topics should remain civil. There's no "popular opinion" here, and so if you break this rule, you might get in trouble with either NS or regional mods." help an unbiased government. it says literally "be civil and don't be hateful" idk what you mean by it preventing a unbiased government unless you are saying racism, fascism etc are other opinions that government figures should listen to

3. and? its still important i dont care for a ban on saying v**tura but i still follow it

whats been going on fellers

Gorutimania wrote:whats been going on fellers

we are debating about the reforms i dont like some of them

Hermitius wrote:1. then say in some circumstances you wont suppress it but still ban it

2. "We allow all opinions, besides hateful ones. So conservatives, moderates, and liberals can live peacefully."

and

"In addition to number 4, arguments on political or other topics should remain civil. There's no "popular opinion" here, and so if you break this rule, you might get in trouble with either NS or regional mods." help an unbiased government. it says literally "be civil and don't be hateful" idk what you mean by it preventing a unbiased government unless you are saying racism, fascism etc are other opinions that government figures should listen to

3. and? its still important i dont care for a ban on saying v**tura but i still follow it

1. No, only if it's deemed spam.

2. You pulled old, broad rules as evidence. Rule 4 makes it so that a government member can easily suppress any opinion of someone they don't like during debates, preventing unbiased government. For example, I could suppress you for "arguing" with me, but I'm not.

3. Again, I do not care about the justice system.

I voted in the poll.

Hermitius wrote:we are debating about the reforms i dont like some of them

Apologies, I forgot to endorse you back.

Gorutimania wrote:I voted in the poll.

Amazing.

unlike some people I don't want to clutter the rmb so spoiler on this

[spoiler]

Keltionialang wrote:1. No, only if it's deemed spam.

2. You pulled old, broad rules as evidence. Rule 4 makes it so that a government member can easily suppress any opinion of someone they don't like during debates, preventing an unbiased government.

3. Again, I do not care about the justice system.

1. then change the reforms to "remove the ban on triple posting unless it is useful"

2. then the other ro's will deal with it we just add a clause saying "If someone suppresses something not hateful we unsuppress it and warn the ro"

2. again I don't care about the ban on saying vent*ra and I don't go around saying "We need to unban it!!!" if I did I would provide evidence not just say "I don't give a sh*t about it!!"

Keltionialang wrote:Apologies, I forgot to endorse you back.

alright thanks ig [/spoiler]

apologies on the previous post forgot to put the spoiler thing before posting it so

Hermitius wrote:unlike some people I don't want to clutter the rmb so spoiler on this

[spoiler] 1. then change the reforms to "remove the ban on triple posting unless it is useful"

2. then the other ro's will deal with it we just add a clause saying "If someone suppresses something not hateful we unsuppress it and warn the ro"

2. again I don't care about the ban on saying vent*ra and I don't go around saying "We need to unban it!!!" if I did I would provide evidence not just say "I don't give a sh*t about it!!"

alright thanks ig [/spoiler]

You do not need to put spoilers, these are quite short.

1. Triple posting will be removed, and triple posts which hold no substance will be placed under spam instead.

2. ? Hateful things are going to be suppressed. I want to prevent things from being unnecessarily suppressed in the first place.

3.i am not trying to debate you on this

Now, I need to eat, I won't be replying for a bit.

Hermitius wrote:to give even more reasoning

1. triple posting is spam so we need the ban

2. rule 4 allows an unbiased government if we are biased less people will come

3. The justice system is important for deciding things so we need that and a party leader and presiding officer for government decisions is important

1. I disagree, 3’s not crazy as long as it isn’t intentionally spam

2. I think he meant the rule about not arguing with senior members

3. We have a President and I’m Chief Justice, and I offered him a chance to challenge his ban in the Supreme Court, he just hasn’t taken it yet. Also I’m disbanding the CPF since it’s basically fallen apart anyways.

Keltionialang wrote:You do not need to put spoilers, these are quite short.

1. Triple posting will be removed, and triple posts which hold no substance will be placed under spam instead.

2. ? Hateful things are going to be suppressed. I want to prevent things from being unnecessarily suppressed in the first place.

3.i am not trying to debate you on this

eh i kinda do dont wanna clutter the rmb like SOME people

this goes for 1 and 2 if you keep the rule and add some clauses its way eaiser

and for 3 its stupid to get rid of a whole part of the government because you dont care for it i wanna talk about ventur* but i cant and i dont really

Constantipolianioianietani wrote:1. I disagree, 3’s not crazy as long as it isn’t intentionally spam

2. I think he meant the rule about not arguing with senior members

3. We have a President and I’m Chief Justice, and I offered him a chance to challenge his ban in the Supreme Court, he just hasn’t taken it yet. Also I’m disbanding the CPF since it’s basically fallen apart anyways.

1. nah its still basically spam

2. no he meant the only suppress hateful posts one

3. yeah what about other people? if we get rid of it after 1 rejection its stupid. i know its not really related but after 1 rejection should i stop liking women and hate them instead?

Hermitius wrote:eh i kinda do dont wanna clutter the rmb like SOME people

this goes for 1 and 2 if you keep the rule and add some clauses its way eaiser

and for 3 its stupid to get rid of a whole part of the government because you dont care for it i wanna talk about ventur* but i cant and i dont really

1. No clauses needed, exceptions only complicate the government.

2. I forgot what this point was.

3. I am not debating on you about the justice system

NOW, I'll be going to eat. I really thought you would support the less restrictive RMB rules, considering your past history.

Hermitius wrote:1. nah its still basically spam

2. no he meant the only suppress hateful posts one

3. yeah what about other people? if we get rid of it after 1 rejection its stupid. i know its not really related but after 1 rejection should i stop liking women and hate them instead?

1. Good for you

2. Alrighty

3. I’ll make sure to TG any further banned members that they can challenge their ban if they can provide a legitimate case. Also wtf do you mean “get rid of it after 1 rejection”

Keltionialang wrote:1. No clauses needed, exceptions only complicate the government.

2. I forgot what this point was.

3. I am not debating on you about the justice system

NOW, I'll be going to eat. I really thought you would support the less restrictive RMB rules, considering your past history.

1. clauses are good because if you remove a entire rule some people may go "they never said i cant do blah blah blah"

2. you can read just go read

3. so being stubborn and not even hearing people out is ok for the ro's here? ok

4. yeah you would but yaknow i wanna be more mature then before

Constantipolianioianietani wrote:1. Good for you

2. Alrighty

3. I’ll make sure to TG any further banned members that they can challenge their ban if they can provide a legitimate case. Also wtf do you mean “get rid of it after 1 rejection”

i really dont know anymore i think i thought you implied that we should get rid of it after (can i call the guy we must not speak about ven? ill do it until some guy says no or some girl says no or some they them says no) ven said no

Gorutimania wrote:...

i would make a tasteless joke now and i will

is that a once a month reference?

Hermitius wrote:i would make a tasteless joke now and i will

is that a once a month reference?

idk

Gorutimania wrote:idk

i like how you didnt talk about my incredibly bad joke

Hermitius wrote:1. clauses are good because if you remove a entire rule some people may go "they never said i cant do blah blah blah"

2. you can read just go read

3. so being stubborn and not even hearing people out is ok for the ro's here? ok

4. yeah you would but yaknow i wanna be more mature then before

1. That will also be considered spam.

2. I do not know how to read

3. I just do not care about the justice system, debate Constanti on that.

4. ok

Keltionialang wrote:1. That will also be considered spam.

2. I do not know how to read

3. I just do not care about the justice system, debate Constanti on that.

4. ok

1. you wanna prevent stuff? give clauses

2. cool

3. cool

4.cool

Hermitius wrote:1. you wanna prevent stuff? give clauses

2. cool

3. cool

4.cool

1. clauses are pointless, the ROs can determine if a triple-post is spam or not. If it's just the word yes over and over, it is spam. If it is actually something of substance, like talking about 3 different things with 3 different people, it is not spam.

2. ok

3. ok

4. huh

Hermitius wrote:1. you wanna prevent stuff? give clauses

2. cool

3. cool

4.cool

ok this debate is kinda pointless now since gorutimania agrees with the reforms

Keltionialang wrote:1. clauses are pointless, the ROs can determine if a triple-post is spam or not. If it's just the word yes over and over, it is spam. If it is actually something of substance, like talking about 3 different things with 3 different people, it is not spam.

2. ok

3. ok

4. huh

1. they really aint. if we add clauses we can prevent people being like "they never said to not do blah" (i know i am repeating myself but you aint giving no oppertunitys to not)

Keltionialang wrote:ok this debate is kinda pointless now since gorutimania agrees with the reforms

nuh uh i can change them (i have a complex)

Hermitius wrote:1. they really aint. if we add clauses we can prevent people being like "they never said to not do blah" (i know i am repeating myself but you aint giving no oppertunitys to not)

nuh uh i can change them (i have a complex)

Eh, I'll just end this here. The decision is final. I gotta create an entirely new nation and lore for it anyways.

Stranarei

Hermitius wrote:1. they really aint. if we add clauses we can prevent people being like "they never said to not do blah"

True.

Stranarei wrote:True.

About the RP, can I create different alien species along the way? Sort of like discovering them one by one.

Stranarei

Hermitius wrote:1. they really aint. if we add clauses we can prevent people being like "they never said to not do blah" (i know i am repeating myself but you aint giving no oppertunitys to not)

nuh uh i can change them (i have a complex)

wait you made a minor spelling mistake i win

Stranarei

Keltionialang wrote:About the RP, can I create different alien species along the way? Sort of like discovering them one by one.

Eh, I guess. I was going to have only four but I guess those could just be the ones we initially know, then we discover more. Make them somewhat primitive though, so that it's logical that we haven't discovered them yet.

Stranarei wrote:Eh, I guess. I was going to have only four but I guess those could just be the ones we initially know, then we discover more. Make them somewhat primitive though, so that it's logical that we haven't discovered them yet.

Outside the black zone, as we "discover" the outer galaxy, further north. That's what I mean.

Stranarei

Keltionialang wrote:Outside the black zone, as we "discover" the outer galaxy, further north. That's what I mean.

Oh yeah, absolutely.

Stranarei wrote:Oh yeah, absolutely.

Alright. So we are allowed to slowly expand, right? If we are, I suggest "turns", where each person would make one action. People could only colonize a system every 2 turns.

Keltionialang wrote:Eh, I'll just end this here. The decision is final. I gotta create an entirely new nation and lore for it anyways.

ok

Keltionialang wrote:wait you made a minor spelling mistake i win

YOU DID TOO I WIN

Hermitius wrote:ok

YOU DID TOO I WIN

ok fine it's a draw

600th message of the day :D

Keltionialang wrote:ok fine it's a draw

you made more then one though so I WIN HAHA

Hermitius wrote:you made more then one though so I WIN HAHA

nuh uh i am perfect so i physically cannot make a spelling mistake i win

Keltionialang wrote:nuh uh i am perfect so i physically cannot make a spelling mistake i win

my mommy said I am special and I am god AND YOU made 3 grammatical mistakes so I WIN HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

Hermitius wrote:my mommy said I am special and I am god AND YOU made 3 grammatical mistakes so I WIN HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

nuh uh

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1970134

Stranarei wrote:https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1970134

By known world, do you mean Earth?

devil in a new dress

Gorutimania wrote:devil in a new dress

?

Keltionialang wrote:?

As you can see, Keltio is stressed right now.

Gorutimania wrote:As you can see, Keltio is stressed right now.

Not really, in fact, I'm quite calmed down.

Keltionialang wrote:Not really, in fact, I'm quite calmed down.

nuh uh

Gorutimania wrote:nuh uh

I just ate. It was only panda, because fast food, but it tasted quite nice. Rangoons are pretty good.

Stranarei

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