Post
Region: Thaecia
Hi Thaecia! I'm rather busy at the moment, so I'll just give you the voting recommendation here.
Reccomendation: Against
Reasoning: This is a very short law, and while that is not objectively bad, with the lack of words also comes a lack of good reasoning and explanation. Things are poorly defined, and overall just poorly written.
Thaecians for: NONE
Thaecians Against: NONE
Reasoning: This is a very short law, and while that is not objectively bad, with the lack of words also comes a lack of good reasoning and explanation. Things are poorly defined, and overall just poorly written.
Thaecians for: NONE
Thaecians Against: NONE
Recomendation: AGAINST
Reasoning: This proposal is bad. It's bad from a writing point of view, it's bad from a law point of view, and it's bad from a declaration point of view. This proposal is essentially just outlining the way that warzones function, and then says that the WA won't recognize them as threats to international security. It does nothing and is simply a waste of SC time.
Reasoning: This proposal is bad. It's bad from a writing point of view, it's bad from a law point of view, and it's bad from a declaration point of view. This proposal is essentially just outlining the way that warzones function, and then says that the WA won't recognize them as threats to international security. It does nothing and is simply a waste of SC time.
Thaecians For: NONE
Thaecians Against: