NationStates Jolt Archive

I am the Founder and President of Concosia, a nation that is intent on taking down Gatesville. I am looking for other regions that have this same purpose, as I know there are some. If you are in a region or know of a region that is against Gatesville, please let me know.
Thanks,
Regius

Um...yeah...good luck with that.

Yeah good luck, I support your views but it's all pretty futile.

Wow. A little ambitious but certainly within your right to desire...

Neither my region nor I have anything against Gatesville. But have you seen that they have a founder that is still alive and well? Not to mention a Delegate with more endorsements than nations (both UN and non-UN) in your entire region?

That spells badness. But like I said, I wish you great amounts of enjoyment in whatever you do. ;)

I'm not saying it's going to be easy, but we've grown a ton over the last week or two, and if we can continue to grow and get some good allies, we'll eventually be a match for them. Even if it doesn't involve crashing, if we can get enough people in Concosia, we can completely anull all of Gatesville's UN votes, and their purpose will be shot.

May I ask what you have against Gatesville? Or is it just pick a region and hate them type of thing your doing.

Hmm-hmm. Good luck. This one shall be watching from the wings though.

But it does come to question the reasoning and purpose of this crusade. We, at Gatesville, have voiced our reasoning and purpose for the public as misinterpreted as it sometimes is. Is there something specific fueling this ambition of yours? Or is the thought of defeating Gatesville all that fuels this amibition? Care to clear the fog of this one's mind?

Oh dear.

What we have here ladies and gentlemen, is a triumph of ego over rationality. Gatesville has over 200 delegate endorsements, 1100 nations and a military bigger than dear Regius' entire region. Not to mention our franchises. Or the fact that practically every major force in the NationStates world is allied with us.

The simple fact of the matter is that we will continue to grow. More members means we have more recruiters, and more things to do in our forum to keep people interested, which in turn means we grow faster, meaning we have more members. In short, bigger is better.

Now, as for Concosia, I would like to take this occasion to chuckle. It has 1/13th of the endorsements Gatesville has.

And we are still in the process of changing delegates Lady Nevadar will soon have well over 300 endorsements.

good luck, but I don't think anyone is gonna help you against GV...

Also, I would invite you to the LoSR if you change your policy...

But I respect your position, just don't think war is the right way...

Regius']I'm not saying it's going to be easy, but we've grown a ton over the last week or two, and if we can continue to grow and get some good allies, we'll eventually be a match for them. Even if it doesn't involve crashing, if we can get enough people in Concosia, we can completely anull all of Gatesville's UN votes, and their purpose will be shot.

I don't think you will ever be ever to match them.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Gatesville welcomes all comers.

In Gatesville we obviously have a larger goal and purpose. Not to mention larger numbers. And why is that? Because other nation's believe in our cause, and wish to ally themselves with us for this cause. We are very clear about our intentions, and you don't hear us trying to rally up support to attack you. If you don't know our mission, it's on the forum. A forum that is very active and people have a great time on. There is so much to do on our forum that people stay. We make friends that we'd never have known if we were but a small region with a small forum and a big ego.

I also notice that you seem to have not bothered responding since your irrational and illogical post. Is this because you realize we are right?

In Gatesville we obviously have a larger goal and purpose. Not to mention larger numbers. And why is that? Because other nation's believe in our cause, and wish to ally themselves with us for this cause. We are very clear about our intentions, and you don't hear us trying to rally up support to attack you. If you don't know our mission, it's on the forum. A forum that is very active and people have a great time on. There is so much to do on our forum that people stay. We make friends that we'd never have known if we were but a small region with a small forum and a big ego.

I also notice that you seem to have not bothered responding since your irrational and illogical post. Is this because you realize we are right?

You Gatesvillians reak of arrogance.
But basically, Concosia is to Gatesville what Gatesvilles is to the UN.
Consider that my two cents.

mm, and my question goes unanswered.

What is it you have against Gatesville?

If its our stance against the UN, I dont see why you should hate us for it. Many resolutions passed in the UN are flawed and restrict the choice of each nation. Liberals can give their people the things they need, and benefit. And even dictators need the choice to rule their nation as they see fit.

If it is what some have said, "They're trying to ruin the game!" why would we do that? What point is there in doing that? In my opinion I saw Gatesville as a way to reform the UN, for Pro-choice. Not to "destroy the game".

So why are you against us?

Hah, hah, hah!:p I get it. April Fools, right? That was a good one.

mm, and my question goes unanswered.

What is it you have against Gatesville?

If its our stance against the UN, I dont see why you should hate us for it. Many resolutions passed in the UN are flawed and restrict the choice of each nation. Liberals can give their people the things they need, and benefit. And even dictators need the choice to rule their nation as they see fit.

If it is what some have said, "They're trying to ruin the game!" why would we do that? What point is there in doing that? In my opinion I saw Gatesville as a way to reform the UN, for Pro-choice. Not to "destroy the game".

So why are you against us?

The government of St Edmund is not actually anti-Gatesville, at least not most of the time, but does deplore the fact that your delegate voted against our proposal on 'Meteorological Cooperation' (which passed anyway, however, and is now Resolution #148) despite the facts that this proposal was sovereignty-friendly, pro-market and even potentially helpful to non-members of the UN as well as to members...

Gatesville is a free peaceful democratic region in fact we do vote for resolutions on occasion. The regional vote is determined by debate and polling on our forum so the individual nation of Gatesville has representation.

I quite admire the determination and skill of Gates and the other fine members of his region. I see no compelling reason to join a move to destroy their sovereignty as a region, and many others have mentioned the various compelling practical reasons for not making the attempt to destroy Gatesville.

I gotta say, I never really "got" the Gatesville thing. And so it logically follows that I don't get this region's purpose either. Does it serve any ideological purpose? Are you against what Gatesville does, or do you just not like the big boy on the block? Are you pro-UN, anti-UN, sovereigntist, anti-sovereigntist, International Federalist, fluffy, lefty, righty, what?

As far as Gatesville goes, I don't know why any of them are even in the United Nations, if they're so against it. The voting against all resolutions and for all repeals is one thing. I'm about as avid a national sovereigntist as you can get, and even I can see some merit in some bills to foster international cooperation, so long as they are not overtly intrusive and respect national rights.

So there you have it. A resounding "meh" from the Federal Republic. Good luck with your new region, Regius. And don't be surprised if your numbers dwindle after awhile; a lot of supposedly "upstarter" regions with a heavy flow of new arrivals suddenly see all their new friends die off in a couple weeks. See you around.

I'd agree with that. I never really got what Gatesville was all about except that it was obviously against the U.N. I also personally thought that the whole 'anti U.N' thing was just a clever recruiting tactic and a way of increasing the Delegate's endorsement count. But you have to give thema lot of credit as their numbers haven't fallen yet and I think they've increased recently.

lol, cheers for that last one.

Well you see the UN is bad because everyone HAS to obey exactly what they're told. BUT it could be a good thing. Imagine being able to choose what Resolutions effect your nation, instead of being forced to adopt everything that is passed. Many people just vote for everything, so a lot of whats passed is badly writen and restricting on nations rights.

Sorry for my delayed response.

So why, if you only plan to reform the UN, does Gates' message to all new nations conclude with "Death to the UN and the vermin that control it."

Why, if we are such a lousy nation that no one cares about, have we gained more than 75 people in the past 3 weeks?

Why, if our foums are so unfriendly, do we have people joining right and left to play our new war simulation?

Why, if our nation is so little a threat to Gatesville, have you attempted to send more than five nations to spy on us?

Why are you guys gettin so worked up over this?

Gatesville has a right to exist due to its matter of political opinion.
the UN has a right to exist because of its attempts to help the world thoughtout crisis to crisis.

my bottom line is don't destroy the UN, for its purpose and goal is good
but people have corrupted that.

thats just my opinion.....

Well you see the UN is bad because everyone HAS to obey exactly what they're told. BUT it could be a good thing. Imagine being able to choose what Resolutions effect your nation, instead of being forced to adopt everything that is passed.There is a recourse for securing absolute freedom for your nation. It's called resigning. I have no clue why any of you even belong to the UN, if your only goal seems to be insuring that the body is mired in gridlock.

Many people just vote for everything, so a lot of whats passed is badly writen and restricting on nations rights.And many people just vote against everything, most of them reside in your region and its franchises, so a lot of productive legislation that could be passed doesn't.

Why, if we are such a lousy nation that no one cares about, have we gained more than 75 people in the past 3 weeks?Called recruiting. You'll find a lot of people will join your region if you send them telegrams. You'll also find that many of the respondents are clueless and have no idea what region they are joining or what purpose it holds, and many of them become extinct in a matter of weeks. Just like I told you in my last post.

Speaking of regional cluelessness, I still don't know what the purpose of your region is either. So you hate Gatesville. OK. What do you stand for? Protecting the UN? More proactive UN policy? Sovereigntism? Anti-sovereigntism? Free enemas for the homeless? What?

the UN has a right to exist because of its attempts to help the world thoughtout crisis to crisis.What specific crises has the UN responded to? None. The rules forbid the UN to intervene in national, regional or international incidents; they also forbid the UN from raising an army.

Imagine being able to choose what Resolutions effect your nation, instead of being forced to adopt everything that is passed. Many people just vote for everything, so a lot of whats passed is badly writen and restricting on nations rights.

We already have that: it's called national issues. Heard of them? People can choose whether they get them once or twice a day, on weekends, or at all. If you want to be able to choose exactly what is passed, then just do the national issues and don't be a UN member. It's that simple.

I love the way you respond only to the Gatesville peeps and ignore everyone else. It's like you got an obsession, or something. :p

I love the way you respond only to the Gatesville peeps and ignore everyone else. It's like you got an obsession, or something. :p

What was your first clue to the obsession? The forming of an entire region dedicated to taking Gatesville down? :p

What was your first clue to the obsession? The forming of an entire region dedicated to taking Gatesville down? :p


OOC: I'm guessing someone from Gatesville fucked his girlfriend.

Ah yes the age old argument if you don’t like the U.N. leave it well Gatesville is not going anywhere. If fact new regional goals have been established 1500 nations [were over 1200 now] 500 delegate endorsements and a 100 member militia force were almost there on that one. Do we invade regions to collect delegate votes no we don’t for we believe in regional sovereignty as much as national sovereignty. However if open hostilities are declared against our region we will awaken the sleeping giant.

So much debate over one little region...okay, perhaps not so little seeing as how we are the largest player-created region in the game and have been for a year and several months now.

Regius, you are welcome to do whatever you wish. Gatesville currently has 1212 nations and I have 222 endorsements. That will rise to over 300 once the delegate switch is complete. Our military stands at roughly 100 UN nations, at which at least half can and will move with less than 24 hours notice. That does not include our allies. In case you haven't noticed, we haven't even bothered to respond to your declaration of war. Why should we?

Actually, Omigodtheykilledkenny, the UN has attempted to pass legislation before that would affect both member and non-member nations. This is one of the values that Gatesville stands for--if you wish not to be affected by the UN and choose not to enter its hallowed halls, then they should not be able to affect you in any way. In order to defend against further legislation such as this, we ask that our members join the UN to fight against.

Gatesville stands for national and regional sovereignty. This translates to "the right to rule your nation as you see fit." I have never understood what was so difficult to understand about that.We accept all forms of national government, religion, and belief systems. We do not exclude membership based on creed, motto, style, or any requirement other than that the nations there do not attempt treason or sedition. We do not require them to vote a certain way; we do not even require them to be in the UN.

I have no idea what exact event prompted the forming of Concosia, but it is not the first region to be formed with the intent to destroy or mock us, nor is it likely to be the last. Cluichstan, your guess is as good as mine, and much, much more humorous.

Hello, Domocolees! Always a pleasure to see you again. I would like to add that even though "open hostilities" are declared at least once a month, we rarely take action. We are a foundered region, with foundered franchises, and a secure forum. As such we are essentially invulnerable. Makes it a mite boring, truth be told...

Regius']We already have that: it's called national issues. Heard of them? People can choose whether they get them once or twice a day, on weekends, or at all. If you want to be able to choose exactly what is passed, then just do the national issues and don't be a UN member. It's that simple.

I've heard of national Issues, but they dont influence the UN resolutions in any way.
A UN resolution is proposed and voted for in the United Nations(see left on your nations page), if it passes all UN nations have to abide while national Issues are well... national and found only in Issues.

Dont mind me though, cuz I aint no Gatesvillain.

Actually, Omigodtheykilledkenny, the UN has attempted to pass legislation before that would affect both member and non-member nations.That's funny; it's not allowed to. Read the rules.

Here’s an example from The Rights of Neutral States resolution.

At the sole discretion of individual governments, nations can use any or all measures deemed appropriate to deter non-UN nations from violating the terms of neutrality, including all diplomatic efforts and sanctions, economic and trade sanctions, economic and trade embargoes, declaration of hostile state status, and declaration of hostilities.

I suggest you take a closer look at the wording of some of the past resolutions.

Or how about this proposal the was not deleted but didn’t make it to vote.

Description: Whereby war and the threat thereof is never beneficial to the population at large,

The United Nations

1. Decide to collectively negotiate arms reductions, and eventual elimination, with non-UN members;
2. Ban the trading of arms across national boundaries, both within the UN and between UN members and non-UN members;
3. Recommend that non-members also ban the trading of arms across national boundaries;
4. Decide to implement full sanctions against those states, members and non-members alike, that do not slash military spending by 75% within six months of the implementation of the current resolution, with possible time extensions available to those states currently defending their homeland in a war.

Here’s an example from The Rights of Neutral States resolution.

At the sole discretion of individual governments, nations can use any or all measures deemed appropriate to deter non-UN nations from violating the terms of neutrality, including all diplomatic efforts and sanctions, economic and trade sanctions, economic and trade embargoes, declaration of hostile state status, and declaration of hostilities.So what? Member states could undertake those measures even without the UN's say-so. This clause does not require anything of non-member states.

Or how about this proposal the was not deleted but didn’t make it to vote.

Description: Whereby war and the threat thereof is never beneficial to the population at large,

The United Nations

1. Decide to collectively negotiate arms reductions, and eventual elimination, with non-UN members;
2. Ban the trading of arms across national boundaries, both within the UN and between UN members and non-UN members;
3. Recommend that non-members also ban the trading of arms across national boundaries;
4. Decide to implement full sanctions against those states, members and non-members alike, that do not slash military spending by 75% within six months of the implementation of the current resolution, with possible time extensions available to those states currently defending their homeland in a war.Again, so what? Just because the mods don't delete something, it doesn't make it legal; in fact, this proposal sounds pretty darned illegal if you ask me.

But what people don't realize is that UN Resolutions do not, in any way, effect Non-UN Nations at all. I'm sick of seeing these people declare war upon Non-UN Nations saying that they are violating UN Law. It's getting rediculous...

What specific crises has the UN responded to? None. The rules forbid the UN to intervene in national, regional or international incidents; they also forbid the UN from raising an army.

^true but you can't blame them for trying to stop these things.


Sowhats going to happen? a flame war between Concosia and Gatesville?

So what? Member states could undertake those measures even without the UN's say-so. This clause does not require anything of non-member states.

Again, so what? Just because the mods don't delete something, it doesn't make it legal; in fact, this proposal sounds pretty darned illegal if you ask me.
Exactly. The point of the matter is that neither one should even have been allowed to remain submitted. Why should the UN have the right to tell us what we may or may not do with non-UN nations? Why shouldn't a proposal that is so obviously illegal not get deleted? There was even a proposal submitted once entitled "Destroy Gatesville" or somesuch, and that wasn't deleted either. It never made it to vote, of course...but still.

I have read the rules. That doesn't mean that we do not watch for violations. That is part of what Gatesville stands for: Standing up for the rights of the individual nation to be free of UN rule is he or she so desires.

Shazbotdom, I agree with your second statement completely. Unfortunately, the first is no longer true.

Cookborough, Gatesville has some new region come up and declare war on us at least once a month. When we get someone worthy of a flame war, we will give them what for--just not here, where it violates the rules. ;)

Thank you lady Nevadar you all are getting off track here the fact is that hostile threats have been made against Gatesville by a region that wants to see us destroyed. This action will only strengthen our resolve and priority will now be given to building our militia and UN membership. Gateseville takes outside threats seriously and will resort to any means possible to protect her borders.

Okay, let me get this straight. Gatesville wants to be free of the UN's influence, and wants to destroy it from the inside, and encourages its member to join the UN. Am I missing something here, or do they not know that nations can resign? Either way the UN isn't going anywhere soon, and neither, I assume is Gatesville.

Why should the UN have the right to tell us what we may or may not do with non-UN nations?It isn't telling you to do anything; it is affirming your right to confront nations you feel may violate a nation's neutrality. Or did you miss this clause?: At the sole discretion of individual governments, nations can use any or all measures deemed appropriate to deter non-UN nations from violating the terms of neutrality, including all diplomatic efforts and sanctions, economic and trade sanctions, economic and trade embargoes, declaration of hostile state status, and declaration of hostilities.

Rights of Neutral States was a perfectly reasonable article, well within the bounds of acceptable international legislation, and a perfect example of what the UN should be doing as opposed to interfering in nations' internal affairs. It does not necessarily require anything of nations; it simply sets the standards and qualifications for nations wishing to declare formal neutrality.

Why shouldn't a proposal that is so obviously illegal not get deleted? There was even a proposal submitted once entitled "Destroy Gatesville" or somesuch, and that wasn't deleted either. It never made it to vote, of course...but still.So the mods overlooked a couple wayward (and completely illegal) proposals. Oversight isn't perfect, you know, and as you already stated, those proposals never made it to quorum, nay, they never had a prayer of reaching quorum to begin with.

I have read the rules. That doesn't mean that we do not watch for violations.Good. The next time you spot one (and I'm assuming you would be able to recognize a violation when you saw it, seeing as how you have read the rules and everything), report it via a GHR -- instead of using it to stoke your own paranoid fantasies about the UN plotting to take you down.

That is part of what Gatesville stands for: Standing up for the rights of the individual nation to be free of UN rule is [sic] he or she so desires.Yes. Plenty of options exist for nations wishing to protect their sovereignty: there's Gatesville, there's Texas, there's Antarctic Oasis, there's the National Sovereignty Organization, there's the resign button. Take your pick.

We can argue back and forth until hell freezes over about the U.N. lets keep this thread on topic and that is a public declaration of war against our region.

“I am the Founder and President of Concosia, a nation that is intent on taking down Gatesville”

We can argue back and forth until hell freezes over about the U.N. lets keep this thread on topic and that is a public declaration of war against our region.

“I am the Founder and President of Concosia, a nation that is intent on taking down Gatesville”

Yes, and I'm sure Gatesville is quaking in its collective boots. :rolleyes:

Don't target Gatesville the region - you haven't a prayer. Instead, concentrate your resources on blocking their raison d'etre: the emasculation of the UN. Get working and campaigning on proposals that are anathaema to their particular brand of sovereigntism. That's the only way you're going to frustrate their efforts to achieve their goals.

Alternatively, just ignore them.

Don't target Gatesville the region - you haven't a prayer. Instead, concentrate your resources on blocking their raison d'etre: the emasculation of the UN. Get working and campaigning on proposals that are anathaema to their particular brand of sovereigntism. That's the only way you're going to frustrate their efforts to achieve their goals.

Alternatively, just ignore them.

Did somebody just say something?

;)

Did somebody just say something?
Hmm, what?

is this going to clear things up? i mean whats going to happen now?

(shrugs) Is this much stirring up necessary? Do we really have to really get into the finer points of things? This old man can only sigh that such a fuss was made. Oh well. Rest assured. This one believes we need not have to get into such demeaning terms or writing.

As such, there can only be one thing that can be stated. The limited perception of one is as so. We as people were only given such a perception that is and will always be limited. If there can be no understanding between both sides or both persons after explanations, there can be nothing done to that certain problem. Thus, it is quite difficult to fully understand or comprehend the thinkings of others. Yet, it does show one's colors when one criticizes the other for that very reason.

Therefore, this old man can only ask that we not digress into poking each other in the ribs. And this one shall ask for forgiveness for going into that little ramble. Hmm-hmm. This one thinks he may be getting senile. Heh heh.

If there are questions, this one would be happy to answer them to the best of this one's knowledge.