View Topic

I don't personally think it should affect it. The NPO have been unapologetic for their actions, and seem more interested in scapegoating certain individuals...a tactic they commonly utilize when their endeavors fail, I've read. They're not sorry they did it, they're sorry they failed.

Might I suggest we just go all-out and declare war then, as well?

Well, I'm sure a similar stance is going to be kept with the NPO still existing.  Though the recent turn of events do kind of throw this one into the backburner, I'd imagine.

War might not be a good idea.  Lazarus is still recovering, and likewise the other military forces such as TITO I know are still recovering as well.  Especially since many soldiers are still staying in Lazarus until they can be extra sure that it's fine.

A Declaration of War doesn't necessarily extend to toppling the NPO, just keeping the NLO from gaining a foothold again.

In order to prevent the NLO/NPO from gaining a foothold again somewhere in NationStates, a number of regions will have to commit to taking measures against them for an indefinite amount of time. While their attempts at damage control are laughable at the moment, the NPO is expert at outlasting opposition and then rebuilding their reputation quickly afterwards. I don't see anything we've done as acts of war which a declaration would justify, merely as declaring sanctions against their regime as punishment for their actions, and I hope other regions will take similar actions now that the immediate crisis is over.

We should only declare war if we intend to take military action against the NPO in The Pacific, and we should only do so in line with other major regions and groups if they're interested in doing so. At the very least, we should probably wait and see how Lazarus intends to respond to the NPO...but that shouldn't effect this proposal at all, in my opinion.

Any further comments from someone besides Wintermoot and Pengu?

I think it's safe to say discussion is mostly finished. Now which option A one are we using?

Personally, I like the first, since it's a bit more descriptive and thus more difficult to exploit a loophole.  However, I don't know how realistic it's going to be that we're going to actually do a monthly sweep to make sure.

It's technically Wintermoot's job. Also technically he can revoke it at any time for violating it, he just does it on the monthly sweep instead of doing it whenever it's applicable. That's the only time that he has to as mandated by law...

Since this was linked and it's still technically up for discussion before it's brought to the UH...is there any other feedback from anyone on which option A would be the best sounding one?

The first option of Version A would be fine for me.

I concur with using the first option A.

And thank you, @Chanku, for doing our jobs for us.

Welcome I've written laws since the founding of the Storting, and have somewhat indirectly created the general style that is used in most of our laws today.