You can now set your site display theme to dark or light in your user settings! Visit the forum for more information.

Check out our lead developer, jmo1121109, give an interview on the latest DiplomacyGames podcast on recent and coming technology changes and the site in general here.

Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 303 of 412
FirstPreviousNextLast
SandgooseXXI (113 D)
10 Mar 16 UTC
woah woah woah
First off...who changed my gahd damn WTA...wtf is this sum of squares?! Unranked and you GET POINTS BACK! WHAT THE HECK!!!! WE PLAY FRIENDLIES HERE NOW?!?!?!?!
32 replies
Open
DammmmDaniel (100 D)
11 Mar 16 UTC
Classic Map
What was the longest Classic map game ever?
5 replies
Open
Sago (101 D)
27 Jan 16 UTC
UN II Constitution, Resolutions, Interpretations and proposals 2001.
Welcome to 2001. Here you will find the updated Constitution, Resolutions, Interpretations, and the proposals of 2001 for the pacifist diplomacy game UNII
Sago (101 D)
27 Jan 16 UTC
NOTE! THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR DISCUSSION! Please don't post.
It's a record of the constitution, resolutions and proposals made in the UN II game.
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=171427
The general secretary of the game is the one posting in this thread..
Sago (101 D)
28 Jan 16 UTC
Constitution of the United Nations of World Diplomacy IX.

The security council.
§1. The 17 powers has an equal vote in the security council.
§2. All other land (land and coastal) territories are to be considered as independent small nations of the world. They don't have a vote in the security council but they are members of the UN. There are in total 96 independent small nations in the world.
§3. The purpose of the security council is to uphold the peace and resolve conflicts.
Rules of movement.
§4. Any unauthorized movement into an independent small nation territory or a territory of a power is to be considered as an act of war, unless there is a resolution that allows such movement.
§5. The seas and oceans are international water and free for all powers to move in, unless there is a resolution that restricts such movement.
Segments of a turn
§6. Each turn consist of 10 days (the clock counting 9 days to 0 days). This will be divided into 5 segments:
a. 9 & 8 days before next turn (DBNT). Debate-and-vote segment 1.
b. 7 & 6 DBNT. Debate-and-vote segment 2.
c. 5 & 4 DBNT. Debate-and-vote segment 3.
d. 3 & 2 DBNT. Debate-and-vote segment 4.
e. 1 & 0 DBNT, is reserved for diplomacy in the private messaging and for making orders.

General Secretary.
§7. The security council will appoint one power to be the General Secretary of the UN.
a. The purpose of the general secretary is to keep the order in the assembly (the global chat) according to the constitution and the resolutions of the game.
b. The General Secretary decides how the constitution and the resolutions is to be interpreted if the powers don't agree.
c. The General Secretary will be responsible for deciding (in accordance to the constitution) which proposal is up for the next debate-and-vote segment, and to count the votes.
d. The power playing the General Secretary should be explicit about if they are in the role of power or General Secretary when they write a message in the Global chat.

§8. The creator of the Game starts as General Secretary.
§9. The General Secretary remains in office until
a. he/she resigns, is eliminated from the game,
b. OR a power nominates a new candidate for General Secretary and that candidate is elected.

§10. A power can at any time nominate a new General Secretary by announcing it in the Global chat.
a. The vote for the a General Secretary will take place in the next debate-and-vote segment, simultaneous with debate-and-vote on a proposal.

Proposals, debate and voting.
§11. The 17 powers can make proposals for resolution or amendment to the constitution in the security council.
a. By a resolution, moves into independent nations (powers or small nations), can be made legal.
b. Proposals can also be used to amend the constitution by removing, changing or adding parts of it, and/or remove and change earlier resolutions.

§12. To make a proposal at least three powers has to co-sign it.
a. A proposal can be made at any time.
b. The powers will agree on the wording and the content of the proposal in private messaging.
c. The powers co-sign by announcing it in the global chat. Anyone can co-sign a proposal. The co-signing is not binding, i.e. you can later vote against the proposal if you have co-signed it. A co-signing implies that you want to debate-and-vote on a proposal.
d. The proposal will be numbered by year and number (ie 2000.1).
e. The proposals can't be changed after they have been put forth in the global chat, but they can be retracted.

§13. Each segment will only debate-and-vote on ONE proposal. Which proposal is to debate-and-vote next is decided by
a. First: The proposal that has the most co-signings.
b. Second: The oldest proposal.

§14. Each power have one vote, and it has to be made before the segment deadline (i.e. exactly 8, 6, 4 or 2 DBNT) for the vote to be valid.
a. If a power votes more than once the latest vote will count.
b. A power votes by stating that they vote YES or NO in the global chat within the time of the debate-and-vote segment. A power can ABSTAIN by either state that in the global chat, or by not voting within the time of the debate-and-vote segment.

§15. Each power can debate the proposal as many times as they like in the global messages or in private messages, during the time of the debate-and-vote-segment.
a. Power cannot discuss other proposals during a debate-and-vote segment (in the global chat), but they can make other statements and discuss the world status in general at all times. (Note that powers can make a proposal at any time if they are co-signed by at least three powers (§12a), but not discuss its merits until the proposal is in an debate-and-vote segment).

§16. In the vote, to be in effect, a proposal must be approved by an simple majority (more YES than NO) of the powers still in play, if exceptions don't apply.
a. Exception: Changes to §1-3 of the constitution must be approved by a two-thirds majority (more than two-thirds of the remaining powers)
b. Exception: Moves into territories with an SC must be approved by a absolute majority (more than half of the remaining powers).
c. Exception: Votes on a new General Secretary must be approved by a simple majority. If the vote is tied, the old General Secretary stays.

Resolutions and amendments to the constitution.
§17. If a proposal is approved it will either, depending on its content, result in a change of the constitution, or to be called a resolution.
a. All proposals with a purpose not to amend the constitution is called a resolution.
b. The proposal can add, change or remove rules from the constitution or from an already existing resolution.

§18. A resolution is a new law that all nations are obliged to follow, same as the constitution.
§19. The resolutions will be numbered from #1 and upwards. (I.E Resolution 1).
Other rules.
§20. All other rules are in accordance to the rules of World diplomacy IX.
Sago (101 D)
28 Jan 16 UTC
INTERPRETATIONS on the Constitution. (By General Secretary Xi Jinping)
1. Co-signings CAN be retracted by stating this in the global chat. The reasoning is that as a proposal can be retracted (§12e), that implies that if only one power of the co-signers changes it's mind it can retract it's "signing" of the proposal.
Sago (101 D)
28 Jan 16 UTC
RESOLUTION #1
Is deemed, by General Secretary Xi, to be outdated and therefore invalid as of 2001.

In the resolution the deadline for action is autumn 2000.

You can read resolution #1 in the following thread:
http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=1327208#1327208
Sago (101 D)
28 Jan 16 UTC
RESOLUTION #2

In the interest of protecting Mediterranean nation, I propose that no nation can enter the waters of the Mediterranean. Since this forces a European fleet to be trapped in the Italian peninsula, I also propose the immediate annexation of the Iberian peninsula by the EU.
Sago (101 D)
28 Jan 16 UTC
RESOLUTION #3
In order to address the nation of Frozen Antarctica for their breaking of international law, by taking the land of RIS, we believe that the following steps ought to be taken. However, it must be taken into account the circumstances revolving around the unfortunate event. The land is uniquely situated as to be unclear of whether or not it is a land nation or sea region. This is further evidenced that many were at first unsure of what had happened at all. In fact, in Proposal 2000.5, RIS was listed as a sea province. The nation of Frozen Antarctica also immediately issued an apology and promised to retire from the afflicted area. Therefore, I believe it just to take a tone of justice while also being more lenient or merciful due to the circumstances.

Firstly, all military forces must be immediately evacuated from the land of RIS.

However, even after this, we cannot deny that the land of RIS has been colored, so to speak, by the occupation of Antarctican forces. The land will forever be inclined to the nation of Frozen Antarctica. Therefore:

In the event of any new land acquisition bill that applies to Frozen Antarctica that grants them one or more land areas, the first - and possibly only - shall be defaulted and instead the land of RIS, being already semi-included in the power already, shall be substituted.
Sago (101 D)
28 Jan 16 UTC
RESOLUTION #4
Is deemed, by General Secretary Xi, to be outdated and therefore invalid as of 2001.

The resolution is an amendment to Resolution #1, which is deemed invalid.

You can read resolution #4 in the following thread:
http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=1327208#1327208
Sago (101 D)
28 Jan 16 UTC
RESOLUTION #5. Sanctions on USA and India.

USA.
This part of Resolution #5, sanctions on USA, is deemed to be overriden by resolutions #6


India.
This part of Resolution #5 is deemed to be to be outdated and therefore invalid as of 2001. The sanctions was restricted to 2000 and India has followed the rulings of the resolution.

You can read the full resolution #5 in the following thread:
http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=1327208#1327208
Sago (101 D)
28 Jan 16 UTC
RESOLUTION #6 Sanctions and UN peace force against USA.

It has been our task to oversee a difficult transition of power in our world. Many wish not to see the type of turmoil that has arisen in our time. Indeed, those very acts are embodied in the rogue nation of the USA. The very enemies of oppression, tyranny, and imperialism which we sought to destroy have reared their ugly heads in the bloody rule of the USA. It is impossible for the plight of the people of Mexico, Monterrey, Nevada, Indian Territory, or Newfoundland not to be heard as far away as South Africa or China. Their cries demand justice, and we have no choice but to come to their aid. Therefore, it is the somber duty of this council to completely denounce the actions of the USA and to seek the liberation of its victims. Furthermore, we must keep in mind the future victims of this regime, and must take preventative action by destroying the capability of the USA to wreak more havoc in the future.

We, the members of these United Nations do formally declare war upon the nation of the USA. We seek to completely neutralize the threat of the USA, destroying its capability to bring more destruction upon innocent victims. By the formation of a world-wide coalition, we will utterly defeat the USA.

Due to the relationship between them, as dictated by the fortune of geography, several nations shall take the yoke of primary responsibility in the coming storm of war. The honorable and esteemed nations of Western-Canada, Quebec, Brazil, Ghana, and Pacific-Russia, chosen for their proximity to the enemy, as well as their moral uprightness and commitment to character and justice, shall be the primary means of deposing the tyranny of the USA. However, this coalition is, from its very nature, a global collaboration, seeking to bring peace and equality. Therefore, the nearby nations of Argentina, Europe, China, Oz, Frozen-Antarctica, are welcomed as secondary agents in this war. Furthermore, the input of all other nations are sought in these trying times.

While we presume that the nations aforementioned do intend to participate, we understand that it may not be the case. Therefore, any nation given a role within this bill may, at any point, gracefully bow out. At that time, the military tribunal (see next paragraph) will unanimously select a successor to that position.

Perhaps the deepest concern in this type of large scale conflict is the corruption of ones morals. We seek to depose a tyranny, not become one. Therefore, we shall put forth a set of rules of engagement for all actors in this war, which shall be overseen by a military tribunal, responsible for the upholding of these standards. (See Appendix A and B)

An equally pressing concern is that of the aftermath of such a conflict. In seeking to depose one tyrant, we need to be wary of propping up new ones. In order to avoid a monopoly of power, each of the primary actors shall occupy only one of those currently held by the USA, with the exception of Quebec, which shall reclaim their home territory of Newfoundland. (See Appendix C)

The war shall be deemed over when the USA is reduced to one Supply Center. At that point, a full trial shall be held by the remaining players, excepting the General Secretary who shall moderate. Those powers shall then decide the fate of the USA, whether to destroy his remaining troops, banish him permanently, or allow for the possibility of reconciliation.

Appendix A
The members of the military tribunal shall be Russia, Libya, and South Africa, with Russia presiding. They shall authorize or condemn any actions that exceed or are in some way in a grey area regarding the rules of engagement.

Appendix B
Actors in the anti-USA coalition shall have full ability to attack or occupy any region currently held by the USA. Neutral SC's shall be left unoccupied in the fall unless deemed necessary by a further bill. Neutral non-SC nations should be avoided at all cost and only infringed upon in the strictest of circumstances.

Appendix C
The exhaustive list of SC's a nation may occupy are as follows:
Western Canada: Indian Territory
Paficic Russia: California
Brazil: Mexico
Quebec: Newfoundland and Florida
Ghana: Texas

***Note that the USA will maintain one SC until decided upon by the security council.
Sago (101 D)
28 Jan 16 UTC
NOTE! THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR DISCUSSION! Please don't post.
It's a record of the constitution, resolutions and proposals made in the UN II game.
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=171427
The general secretary of the game is the one posting in this thread...
Sago (101 D)
30 Jan 16 UTC
Proposal 2001.1, by Russia. Censure of Western Canada.

Whereas Western Canada, sent hostile and threatening messages to other members of the United Nations, which was reckless, indefensible, and warlike.

Examples of these actions include the following messages:
1) Western Canada, Sunday, January 17: Western-Canada grows sick of India's comments. We threaten war if more inflammatory comments are made regarding their illegal move into Bangladesh. How much of this can we take? I am all for peace, but people who think they can be above the rules make me sick
2) Western Canada, Wednesday, January 20: I fear that East Russia is threatening our existence with a move to the North Pacific Ocean. Our country is on war footing. Any movement attempted towards the North Pacific will be viewed as an act of war
3) Western Canada (private message), Monday, January 25: You can't possibly agree with what Brazil has said. This campaign of smearing my image is unjust and will lead to hostilities.

We resolve that Western Canada, must be held to account for this rhetoric.

We resolve to censure Western Canada for these actions.

A) Censure shall be defined as a strong disapproval of Western Canada’s rhetoric in this chamber.

B) Censure shall not include any other penalty.

We resolve to work together towards stopping the USA menace while at the same time holding each member of this international community to a respectable standard of international decorum.

We hope that Western Canada will cease making warlike and threatening messages in this chamber.
Sago (101 D)
31 Jan 16 UTC
RESOLUTION #7 - Granting India and Argentina a non-threatening center to equalize the world balance, and also removing the restrictions on Antarctica.

The world is in turmoil, and the evil has shown it's face. We haven't seen such agressivness in the world since the swaztika was flying it's colours over Europe, and the American oppression must be punished.

But as we must penalize the wrong-doers, we must also reward the ones that repent.

(1) Therefore, by this resolution, the following nations will be granted a merger with a non-threatening center. The merger must take place during the year of 2001, and after that this resolution is no more valid.

India will be allowed to merger with Bangladesh. India have shown their respect of the international law by following the consequences of resolution #5.

Argentina will be allowed to merger with Peru. They announced to go there in accordance to Resolution #1, but seemed to be stuck on hold. Resolution #1 clearly states that the deadline has past. The president doesn't answer when we call. This make the transition for a eventual new president easier.

(2) This resolution also makes Resolution#3 invalid, as a sign of trust to Antarctica that has followed the lead of the UN. Antarctica will not be bound to any of the consequences of resolution #3.

These nations should be forgiven, and have the same rights of all the righteous nations of the world. We need a balanced world to meet evil. Let's focus on the real threat of USA instead of holding grudges.
Sago (101 D)
02 Feb 16 UTC
RESOLUTION #8. Censure of Western Canada.

Whereas Western Canada, sent hostile and threatening messages to other members of the United Nations, which was reckless, indefensible, and warlike.

Examples of these actions include the following messages:
1) Western Canada, Sunday, January 17: Western-Canada grows sick of India's comments. We threaten war if more inflammatory comments are made regarding their illegal move into Bangladesh. How much of this can we take? I am all for peace, but people who think they can be above the rules make me sick
2) Western Canada, Wednesday, January 20: I fear that East Russia is threatening our existence with a move to the North Pacific Ocean. Our country is on war footing. Any movement attempted towards the North Pacific will be viewed as an act of war
3) Western Canada (private message), Monday, January 25: You can't possibly agree with what Brazil has said. This campaign of smearing my image is unjust and will lead to hostilities.

We resolve that Western Canada, must be held to account for this rhetoric.

We resolve to censure Western Canada for these actions.

A) Censure shall be defined as a strong disapproval of Western Canada’s rhetoric in this chamber.

B) Censure shall not include any other penalty.

We resolve to work together towards stopping the USA menace while at the same time holding each member of this international community to a respectable standard of international decorum.

We hope that Western Canada will cease making warlike and threatening messages in this chamber.
Sago (101 D)
04 Feb 16 UTC
Proposal 2001.2 by Kenya. Amendment to Resolution #6

The following changes to Proposal 2000.10 [Resolution #6] shall be made:

Ghana shall be removed from the list of primary actors and added to the list of secondary actors for the sake of logistics, and Argentina shall replace him.

The distribution of American supply centers shall be as follows:
Indian Territory - West Canada
California - Pacific Russia (if the council votes to eliminate the United States)
Mexico - Argentina
Texas - Brazil
Florida - Quebec
Newfoundland - Quebec

The distribution of non-SC territories, as was not addressed in 2000.10, is as follows:
Monterrey: Argentina or Brazil, who shall decide between themselves who is to take charge of its protection.
Nevada: Pacific Russia (Western Canada if the USA is not eliminated)

If any further non-SC territories fall under the control of the USA in the coming war, further resolutions may be passed to assign them to specific countries.
Sago (101 D)
04 Feb 16 UTC
Proposal 2001.3, by Libya. Legal transfer of territory.

As it stands, the borders of the members of the Security Council are rigidly defined, and requires a strict bureaucratic method to swap hands of territories. This could become a hindrance in re-establishment of peaceful relations between nations of the Security Council. One nation could be upset about the legal ownership of a certain territory by another nation.
Therefore, in order to further peace and kind negotiation between nations of the Security Council, and in order to free up agreements between countries, the Security Council hereby decrees:
If two countries (A and B) agree for one country to come into control of a territory previously belonging to the other country (Territory of B belongs to B, but they agree to allow it to be handed over to country A), both countries (A and B) will be able to publicly state such a transfer to the Security Council at large and the transfer will be recognized as legal.
Sago (101 D)
06 Feb 16 UTC
RESOLUTION #9. Legal transfer of territory.

As it stands, the borders of the members of the Security Council are rigidly defined, and requires a strict bureaucratic method to swap hands of territories. This could become a hindrance in re-establishment of peaceful relations between nations of the Security Council. One nation could be upset about the legal ownership of a certain territory by another nation.
Therefore, in order to further peace and kind negotiation between nations of the Security Council, and in order to free up agreements between countries, the Security Council hereby decrees:
If two countries (A and B) agree for one country to come into control of a territory previously belonging to the other country (Territory of B belongs to B, but they agree to allow it to be handed over to country A), both countries (A and B) will be able to publicly state such a transfer to the Security Council at large and the transfer will be recognized as legal.
Sago (101 D)
06 Feb 16 UTC
NOTE! THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR DISCUSSION! Please don't post.
It's a record of the constitution, resolutions and proposals made in the UN II game.
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=171427
The general secretary of the game is the one posting in this thread.
Sago (101 D)
11 Feb 16 UTC
2001.4 proposal from South Africa, Research movement into South Pole.

As the world watches on to see the USA be stopped on his reign of terror.
Other nations involved in his demise will gain territory through no fault of there own but at the end of the day they still gain a sc from this outbreak of war caused only by the USA.
South Africa can only watch on, same as many other nations that are not involved in the war.
As South Africa would like to continue living life in peace and not be tied up watching a war I'm not really involved in i bring a question to the council.
South Africa's research team in Antarctica would like to expand into the South Pole to collect data from this frozen land, my head scientist has also confirmed to my government that there is no living soles on this part of Antarctica I wish to be granted permission by the council to move a team of scientists into the South Pole. I believe I should be granted this movement as no living sole is there to be disturbed by my team visiting for research.
As for other peace loving nations not involved in the war i suggest these movements:
India movement into Pakistan to help against the taliban terrorist threat.
Argentina movement into Colombia to help fight against the powerful Drug lords taking the Colombian government by force.
Russia movement into Scandinavia to help protect the shores of Europe incase of American invasion across the ocean.
Kenya movement into Congo to help against the current rebel uproar where innocent lives are being lost.
Oz movement into New Zealand for there scientists to discover why there is over population of sharks at the coast lines.
Libya movement into chad to help against the MDJT rebels, Chad government forces and MDJT rebels clashed in the north, 64 killed already.
China movement into Lanzhou, the Lanzhou people declare themselves as part of the great China nation and who are we to oppose these hard working natives of China to become part of china's history.
Near-East movement into Armenia to help the Armenian government gain control after the shooting of the president of Armenia.

Sago (101 D)
12 Feb 16 UTC
2001.4 (revised) proposal from South Africa, Research movement into South Pole.

As the world watches on to see the USA be stopped on his reign of terror.
Other nations involved in his demise will gain territory through no fault of there own but at the end of the day they still gain a sc from this outbreak of war caused only by the USA.
South Africa can only watch on, same as many other nations that are not involved in the war.
As South Africa would like to continue living life in peace and not be tied up watching a war I'm not really involved in i bring a question to the council.
South Africa's research team in Antarctica would like to expand into the South Pole to collect data from this frozen land, my head scientist has also confirmed to my government that there is no living soles on this part of Antarctica I wish to be granted permission by the council to move a team of scientists into the South Pole. I believe I should be granted this movement as no living sole is there to be disturbed by my team visiting for research.
As for other peace loving nations not involved in the war i suggest these movements:
India movement into Pakistan to help against the taliban terrorist threat.
Ghana movement into Morocco to end civil unrest due to both Nations wanting to join forces for equal rights.
Russia movement into Scandinavia to help protect the shores of Europe incase of American invasion across the ocean.
Kenya movement into Congo to help against the current rebel uproar where innocent lives are being lost.
Oz movement into New Zealand for there scientists to discover why there is over population of sharks at the coast lines.
Libya movement into chad to help against the MDJT rebels, Chad government forces and MDJT rebels clashed in the north, 64 killed already.
China movement into Lanzhou, the Lanzhou people declare themselves as part of the great China nation and who are we to oppose these hard working natives of China to become part of china's history.
Near-East movement into Armenia to help the Armenian government gain control after the shooting of the president of Armenia.

Sago (101 D)
13 Feb 16 UTC
Proposal 2001.5 - Ghana swap with Argentina for primary USA conflict.

This bill is for the government of Ghana to stand down as a primary nation against the USA.
This then if passed will give the right to the Argentinian government to step in and take control of the primary place against the USA.
Sago (101 D)
15 Feb 16 UTC
2001.6 proposal from South Africa, Expansion and also Ghana, Argentina primary.

As the world watches on to see the USA be stopped on his reign of terror.
Other nations involved in his demise will gain territory through no fault of there own but at the end of the day they still gain a sc from this outbreak of war caused only by the USA.
South Africa can only watch on, same as many other nations that are not involved in the war.
As South Africa would like to continue living life in peace and not be tied up watching a war I'm not really involved in i bring a question to the council.
South Africa would like to be granted movement into Mozambique to stop the pirates attacking civilian cargo ships arriving with food.
As for other peace loving nations not involved in the war i suggest these movements:
India movement into Pakistan to help against the taliban terrorist threat.
Ghana movement into Morocco to end civil unrest due to both Nations wanting to join forces for equal rights.
Russia movement into Scandinavia to help protect the shores of Europe incase of American invasion across the ocean.
Kenya movement into Congo to help against the current rebel uproar where innocent lives are being lost.
Oz movement into New Zealand for there scientists to discover why there is over population of sharks at the coast lines.
Libya movement into chad to help against the MDJT rebels, Chad government forces and MDJT rebels clashed in the north, 64 killed already.
China movement into Lanzhou, the Lanzhou people declare themselves as part of the great China nation and who are we to oppose these hard working natives of China to become part of china's history.
Near-East movement into Armenia to help the Armenian government gain control after the shooting of the president of Armenia.

Ghana - Argentina.
I would also like to add into the proposal 2001.6 that Ghana and Argentina are allowed to swap primary places against the USA as both of there governments are agreed on doing so.
leon1122 (175 D)
21 Feb 16 UTC
Proposal 2001.7 from Brazil, repealing USA's right to vote

Due to the heinous nature of their actions against the peoples of North America, the USA is hereby removed from these United Nations. They shall be ineligible to vote as well as to sign, cosign, write, or sponsor any bill. No communication originating in the USA shall be recognized by this body unless it is to negotiate complete and total surrender and forfeiture of seized lands.
leon1122 (175 D)
21 Feb 16 UTC
2001.8 - proposal from Western Canada, Change in territorial distribution of USA's Supply Centers

The USA has decided to take another nation's sovereignty even while we continue to defend against the hostilities of earlier. The invasion of Manitoba presents us with an interesting position. Manitoba is in the area of Canada, and it makes sense for a Canadian nation to free it from the overlords of the USA. Neither Quebec nor Western-Canada are comfortable with a foreign power liberating this nation, as it is a threat to both of these nations. As such, we request that Manitoba be liberated by Western Canada.

The following changes will be made to the war on the USA
1) Western Canada will gain Manitoba
2) Pac-Russia will gain Indian Territory when the war has concluded. This is in order for Western Canada to have the extra troops Manitoba provides during the war, and for power to balance afterwards
3) Argentina will gain California

This bill is in order to include Argentina in the war, and prevent the coalescing of SCs to be concentrated in Canada.
leon1122 (175 D)
21 Feb 16 UTC
NOTE! THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR DISCUSSION! Please don't post.
It's a record of the constitution, resolutions and proposals made in the UN II game.
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=171427
The general secretary of the game is the one posting in this thread.
leon1122 (175 D)
23 Feb 16 UTC
Resolution #10 Change in territorial distribution of USA's Supply Centers

The USA has decided to take another nation's sovereignty even while we continue to defend against the hostilities of earlier. The invasion of Manitoba presents us with an interesting position. Manitoba is in the area of Canada, and it makes sense for a Canadian nation to free it from the overlords of the USA. Neither Quebec nor Western-Canada are comfortable with a foreign power liberating this nation, as it is a threat to both of these nations. As such, we request that Manitoba be liberated by Western Canada.

The following changes will be made to the war on the USA
1) Western Canada will gain Manitoba
2) Pac-Russia will gain Indian Territory when the war has concluded. This is in order for Western Canada to have the extra troops Manitoba provides during the war, and for power to balance afterwards
3) Argentina will gain California

This bill is in order to include Argentina in the war, and prevent the coalescing of SCs to be concentrated in Canada.
leon1122 (175 D)
23 Feb 16 UTC
Proposal 2001.9 from Kenya, Punishment against India.

The President of India recently illegally ordered the invasion of Pakistan. This was India's second infringement on national sovereignty of small nations in two years. Thankfully, the citizens of India had justice at heart and, led by Mahatma Deinodan, overthrew their corrupt leader.

Nevertheless, the Security Council must take actions to ensure the region's stability. To that end, India postpone its build until 2003 and return all units to its home supply centers until Spring, 2004. To protect Indian interests, no power shall enter the Bay of Biscay until 2005. India, as an exception, will be allowed to move its fleet into the bay in 2004.
leon1122 (175 D)
25 Feb 16 UTC
Resolution #11 Repealing USA's right to vote

Due to the heinous nature of their actions against the peoples of North America, the USA is hereby removed from these United Nations. They shall be ineligible to vote as well as to sign, cosign, write, or sponsor any bill. No communication originating in the USA shall be recognized by this body unless it is to negotiate complete and total surrender and forfeiture of seized lands.
leon1122 (175 D)
11 Mar 16 UTC
Proposal 2001.10

India must retreat from Pakistan to Delhi or Bombay in Spring, 2002. Pakistan will henceforth be considered a sovereign nation. Oz must not move to Bay of Bengal in Spring, 2002 lest India retreat to Bombay while Bombay moves to Bay of Bengal.

Signed,
Kenya

Cosigned,
Argentina
Brazil
Western-Canada
Oz


28 replies
brainbomb (474 D)
09 Mar 16 UTC
Hillary Clinton now past 1200 Delegates (Halfway point)
With 30 point leads in Ohio and Florida this is over. Bernie will drop out likely sometime next week.
118 replies
Open
brainbomb (474 D)
10 Mar 16 UTC
I filed my taxes
I filed my taxes and will be receiving my huge tax refund of 6.06$ within 21 business days.
7 replies
Open
Hellenic Riot (1619 D (G))
07 Mar 16 UTC
(+2)
webDiplomacy Moderator Applications
See inside for details
58 replies
Open
pahla (344 D)
10 Mar 16 UTC
Be There! fast game
Come on guys, we had to cancel a game a couple of minutes ago so let's play a gunboat game in 15 minutes
0 replies
Open
brainbomb (474 D)
10 Mar 16 UTC
Legolas vs Deadpool
did we do this one yet?
14 replies
Open
Hellenic Riot (1619 D (G))
15 Feb 16 UTC
(+11)
Mafia XVII Game Thread
See inside for details!
5543 replies
Open
Jamiet99uk (136 D)
10 Mar 16 UTC
Martial Law declared in UK after riots
http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2016/03/09/martial-law-declared-uk-casserole-pastry-lid-passed-pie/
1 reply
Open
c0dyz (100 D)
08 Mar 16 UTC
(+2)
yes
http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/66538/how-do-i-draw-a-pair-of-buttocks
4 replies
Open
Jamiet99uk (136 D)
09 Mar 16 UTC
Vegetables
Let's have a discussion.
12 replies
Open
sirdallas (1202 D)
10 Mar 16 UTC
1 MORE NEEDED
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=175618
American Conquest!
3 HOURS LEFT TO JOIN!
0 replies
Open
CommanderByron (869 D (S))
04 Jan 16 UTC
Advertise vDip Games HERE
--
54 replies
Open
wjessop (100 D X)
09 Mar 16 UTC
PlayStation 4 Discussion
PlayStation 4 Reccomendatins, Discussion, Tips, Games, Apps.
7 replies
Open
abgemacht (840 D (G))
10 Mar 16 UTC
(+1)
Ancillary Justice (Imperial Radch)
Has anyone else read this series? If not, you really should if you even remotely enjoy SF. Easily my top 10 series and likely top 5. First book ever to win both the Hugo and Nebula awards.
1 reply
Open
sirdallas (1202 D)
09 Mar 16 UTC
2 players needed. American conquest!
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=175618
6 hours left to join!
0 replies
Open
AlexNesta (244 D)
08 Mar 16 UTC
Please help me set up my first FtF game with friends
Hi mods, I'd like to use the site to play a FtF game with a group of friends. Any advice on how I should proceed? Not getting banned as a multi during/after the game is strongly preferred.
Also, if anyone has any experience playing FtF with all players entering orders on their phones/tablets and/or with players who never played Diplomacy before, please let me know how it went and what I should expect. Thanks!
12 replies
Open
Nikola Maric Eto (23619 D)
08 Mar 16 UTC
(+2)
How weak you have to be...
to attack Trieste in spring '01?
27 replies
Open
DammmmDaniel (100 D)
09 Mar 16 UTC
NEW GAME
Sup guys! new game please join here ASAP http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=175756
Fun modern diplomacy map!!!!
0 replies
Open
jpuhrer (374 D)
06 Mar 16 UTC
Civil Disorder - How many un-sumitted orders until Civil Disorder
I'm currently playing a 20-hour/phase game in which I've seen two players not submit orders for over 5 seasons as well as the retreats and disbands. Really slows the game if the player has left the game. When does Civil Disorder take over and moves are made automatically?

7 replies
Open
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
07 Mar 16 UTC
The Free Takeover Experiment has Failed
The Free Takeover Experiment has Failed
25 replies
Open
Hyperion (1003 D)
07 Mar 16 UTC
Sengoku, Rise of Shogun Ad
A variant based on vdiplomacy:
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=25843
Looking for players to join!
1 reply
Open
Frenchmontana (20 D X)
06 Mar 16 UTC
21
what does the draw vote do
5 replies
Open
redhouse1938 (586 D)
25 Feb 16 UTC
(+1)
The United States have gone completely mad.
Hey guys, it's redhouse, it's been a while.
Just so you know: the US have gone completely mad. If you have Donald "bleeding from wherever" Trump heading the major right wing race and Mitch "Constitution? What's a constitution?" McConnell heading the senate, something is wrong.
Very, very, very wrong.
76 replies
Open
Sevyas (904 D)
03 Mar 16 UTC
Slow game for reliable players
Details inside
23 replies
Open
Smokey Gem (189 D)
07 Mar 16 UTC
Convoys Caucus to Kazakstan
Is there a way we can ask the mods/devs why in Modern Dip you can't convoy and army via Caspian sea Caucus to Kazakstan ??
5 replies
Open
kasimax (243 D)
02 Mar 16 UTC
3 gunboat games
25 buy-in each, 48 hour-phases (readying up appreciated), dss, public draws, high rr.
16 replies
Open
Yoyoyozo (187 D)
04 Mar 16 UTC
Can you 1 way draw?
Scenario: 9 days from now when the "Clark is a skrub" live game begins.
everyone but you CDs, but you, being so valiant and gentlemanly, puts up the draw vote. When the CDs are adjudicated, Do you solo? or Draw?
11 replies
Open
domwnec (245 D)
06 Mar 16 UTC
Gunboat signals
Are there common signals in gunboat? For example, does a support move indicate "I want u to move there" while a support hold indicates "I want u to stay there" while an attempted movement indicates "I want u to support me there"???
6 replies
Open
Page 303 of 412
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top