Cormac Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Ainur appointed forum destroyer 94 Block to command their military. That was strike one. Ainur retained forum destroyer 94 Block to command their military after he took up arms against a fellow GCR. That was strike two. Ainur dispatched forum destroyer 94 Block to conduct diplomacy with The West Pacific via their forum embassy. That was strike three. Ainur is, in my opinion, out. I move to close Ainur's forum embassy. Tweedy, Elegarth, Little Sealand and 2 others 5
Llamas Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 I second this motion, so that it can go to formal discussion.
Elegarth Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Same here. With 3 members supporting this, then, we have formal discussion open, which should last for 5 days, and hence close next Wednesday when the vote will be held, unless there is a new prime minister who dictates a new declaration OR more people seconds this, in which case the discussion time can be shortened
Darkesia Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) I will work on banning 94 block this afternoon. ... Nevermind. Westwind has taken care of it for us. Hail Westwind! Edited April 17, 2015 by Darkesia Westwind 1
Elegarth Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Thanks Eli! And it is closed... we may as well not vote anymore Or held the vote to make sure
Llamas Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Thanks Eli! And it is closed... we may as well not vote anymore Or held the vote to make sure Probably not necessary to hold the vote; the Executive Council Act already says it's within the Prime Minister and Foreign Officer's authority to handle FA, so we don't need legislation for it. Elegarth 1
Mediobogdum Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Business concluded in less than 12 hours - good going team Elegarth 1
Llamas Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Political progress! *compares to amount of time such a decision would take in TSP or TNP* Holee shit. I like this.
URAP Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Lol. I hope to be minister of foreign affairs soon, and this is the kind of thing that would be a big nope.
Mediobogdum Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Lol. I hope to be minister of foreign affairs soon, and this is the kind of thing that would be a big nope. What kind of thing? Please elaborate - it seems as if the process was pretty efficient! URAP, Darkesia and Llamas 3
URAP Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 What kind of thing? Please elaborate - it seems as if the process was pretty efficient!Oh I apologize. That was quite stupid, I should have foreseen how at could have been misinterpreted. Anyhow, I mean having a forum destroyer sent to our embassy. Llamas 1
Mediobogdum Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 Hey, URAP, I was only kidding and did understand what you really meant But if you were to become Minister of Foreign Affairs beware of being awarded the dreaded: https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/VCWj_ComN9W0MM3BkkevOQ--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9NDIyO3E9OTU7dz01NTk-/http://miscellany101.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/footinmouth.jpg Llamas and URAP 2
URAP Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 I may just get that, I'm often guilty as charged in that respect
Reçueçn Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 Is deleting threads in embassy row (rather than simply locking them) historically considered part of closing an in-game embassy?
Eli Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 traditionally we do not delete threads, locking should be sufficient, deleting implies something didn't happen. the admin team doesn't think that's a good idea, archive some day is about it
Recommended Posts