First, Rattanjeetland wishes to advise Jared that in the future, one should make requests, not demands. For demanding shows agression, an aspect I feel that you are attempting to stop, no?

Rattanjeetland agrees that the GX Alliance system is dangerous, but I feel that the only way one can make this fair is through some aspect of Congressional Motion #1, whereby ALL such Alliances are illegal, without pointing fingers at specific countries. Accordingly then, I request that the Secretary General of CP, in this upcoming congress, put each item of the Jared Bill to a re-vote. Though normally this should not be done, I feel that in this case, since so few countries voted on the issue, a re-vote during a congress (a time with maximal voter participation) will allow more countries will vote, ensuring democracy is not compromised for these bill items. In addition, these items should only be of the Yes / No variety.

Jared's concept of the right to veto is interesting, but does not apply to the purpose of the veto. The veto's purpose is to ensure that the interests of the Great Powers are not compromised, especially from small powers who attempt to pass ridiculous accusations through a congress vote. Since the nature of Great Powers is to oppose one another, a fact well seen in the past, A consensus will almost never occur, and often particular Great Powers will be unfairly charged and convicted due to diplomatic "ganging up". As such, a veto is required by each member of the GP council.

Though Rattanjeetland does oppose Jared's viewpoints on the above issues, Rattanjeetland wishes to congratulate Jared for taking an active role in Mapp issues. We all can only hope that others will come forward with ideas that make the Mapp a better place to live in, work in, and draw on.