Page 4 of 5
Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:03 pm
by Kanuckistan
This treaty could be made acceptible by the simple measure of adding "And vice versa." to the end of each point, or something to such an effect.
Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:32 pm
by Akrosia
I have recalled my nay vote and am changing it to "Yea". Our ships will still intercept any non-Federation ship that enters our terrirtory, but I don't think it would look good if we rejected this treaty.
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2004 5:36 pm
by The Mindset
Voting Closed: Results
Yay 42% [ 6 ]
Nay 50% [ 7 ]
Abstain 7% [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 14
Motion FAILS.
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2004 5:54 pm
by Akrosia
Fellow Union members, I propose to send a revised version of this pact back to the IDP. Any supporters? We could add some of the proposed revisions.
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2004 6:03 pm
by The Mindset
Akrosia wrote:Fellow Union members, I propose to send a revised version of this pact back to the IDP. Any supporters? We could add some of the proposed revisions.
Feel free to.
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2004 6:11 pm
by Sskiss
The Sskiss agree to the "visual words"* ["writing"] of the posture of "neutrality/non-aggressiveness" ["non-agreesion pact"].
* - Because the Sskiss language is partialy somantic, the Sskiss never developed a writen form of their language until the development of holographic based technologies.
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2004 7:46 pm
by Wormia
I think the idea is fine, but too lax on the part of the IDF.
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2004 8:08 pm
by Five Civilized Nations
*yawns*
Security? Whatever...
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:16 pm
by Akrosia
I simply think It would look bad for the Union if we told the IDF "No, we don't want to make it so we can't attack each other." Doesn't that seem a bit agressive? Sorry, my ramblings.
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:37 pm
by The Mindset
Klonor understands the reasons why it failed. I don't think we have to worry about that.