• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

The Biweekly Wikibox Challenge - Round I

Vote for who you think should win the round!

  • Wolfram: Popular Front North America

    Votes: 7 30.4%
  • Blackentheborg: It Was All Fields Around Here

    Votes: 6 26.1%
  • bd_roberts: Independence Day

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • ZeroFrame: Free the UK

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • NameNotImportant: Thunder Dome

    Votes: 2 8.7%
  • Excelsior: Star Wars: Aftermath

    Votes: 6 26.1%
  • Major Crimson: The Fifth Constitutional Cycle of the Russian Covenant

    Votes: 14 60.9%
  • Callan: Police Force of Ireland

    Votes: 6 26.1%

  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .

aaa

Well-known member
Welcome to the very first round of the Biweekly Wikibox Challenge!

The Rules:
  1. Each player may submit only one entry. You may also choose to collaborate with another user, in which case one person submits the entry and tags their partner in the same post.
  2. Each entry consists of at least one wikibox as well as a writeup. Length is up to you, and you may choose to be as creative as you wish with the content.
  3. You are free to give your entry a title, which will be used in the poll. If no title is given. I will use the subject of the wikibox as the de facto title.
  4. You have exactly 14 days to submit your entry in this thread. After the time is up, I'll create a 3-day poll (also in this thread) to decide the winner.
Now then, with that out of the way, I can think of no better inaugural prompt than...

Fresh Start

There's no specific instructions or guidelines, so it's completely up to you and however you interpret the prompt, "Fresh Start". Best of luck to everyone!
 
Love this; absolutely going to try get a submission up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aaa
Screen Shot 2022-02-05 at 12.48.38 AM.jpg

Thirty-five years after the North American Republic first spread its wings, its nature has been irrevocably changed. What started as a simple protest against "agricultural rationalization" in South Atlantic Region spread across the continent, from the icebound oilfields of Arctic Region to the foundries of Erie Region to the earth-movers of Tehuantepec Region. Within a year, Director Iacocca's meteoric rise had ended with an unceremonious "reassignment" to oversee the refinery at Port Sabine, Piney Woods District, and M-10 Benjamin Davis led an interim government that - under the threat of an enforced return to autarky - opened up the political system to non-regime forces.

Three years into the experiment, it appears likely that the Popular Front will lose next year's elections to the informal coalition of the Christian Democrats and various independentist parties. More importantly, it appears highly unlikely that either side will respond to the election, no matter how it may go, with armed resistance. And that's something worth celebrating, eh?
 
It Was All Fields Around Here

As the period we collectively refer to as the Seventies wound to a close, America was still coming to grips with the Big Impeachment; Richard Nixon had gotten in trouble when his goons being caught rifling through files inside the McGovern campaign's HQ after hours. Many were thankful that, finally, Nixon, that rat bastard, was getting the book thrown at him, but for this? He hadn't been impeached for the failure that was the War on Drugs, or knowingly tapping the phones of popular figures he didn't like, or knowing his Vice President hadn't been filing his taxes properly, or the state-sponsored assassination of that one Chilean politician, fuck, even giddily directing B-52 bombers to incinerate Cambodian farmers, and test out his new nerve agents on Vietnamese children? It was a B&E that finally did it for you, they pondered?

That anger didn't dissipate when the new Vice President-turned President ("Nobody voted for Ford") ended up covering his former boss with an unconditional pardon for anything he 'might have done illegally'. They seethed as they saw Nixon flash the double V after getting away with war crimes only to be whisked away on a helicopter for a quiet retirement. So naturally they tried to channel their anger in to a constructive outlet; even if, yes, the Democratic challenger was a doddery Peanut farmer, they were sure as shit not going to vote for Ford ("Nobody voted for Ford"). You could imagine how that anger came frothing back as the seventies rolled on; the New York City blackout, the petrol shortage, the Iranian hostage crisis, Koreagate. Mr. Peanut was begrudgingly renominated, and the Republicans picked the former director of the CIA, because of course they did. They might've picked a former actor-turned-Governor instead, but he met his end after a nail bomb exploded in his face. They never figured out who mailed it, but that's yet another random tragedy to chalk up to the American zeitgeist.

As the post-Watergate dissatisfaction boomed, a particular voice on the intellectual circuit rang home with more and more dissatisfied Americans. He derided the Republicans as fools who whined about the decay of traditional values yet enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth, while at the same time calling out the Democrats as anti-individualists who tend to focus on defeat and despair. On his first appearance on William Buckley's "Firing Line" he made water-cooler talk by diagnosing the Great American Problem -- encompassing poverty, crime, rape, divorce, and the general existential malaise -- was on a government that no longer represented it's constituents. He appealed all at once to the cult of individualism on the right and the distrust of "The Man" on the left. When New York's lights went out in '77, he was now on the news, reprimanding looters and looted alike for their over-reliance on big business, commercialism and a machine bigger than all of them combined. He spoke with striking farmers and lambasted automation, he spoke with middle-class suburbanites and badmouthed the rat-race the industrial revolution had mapped - he spoke foe the common man, the blue collar, the real America.

Clearly, he was very smart about all of this.

final.png
 
Last edited:
It Was All Fields Around Here

As the period we collectively refer to as the Seventies wound to a close, America was still coming to grips with the Big Impeachment; Richard Nixon had gotten in trouble when his goons being caught rifling through files inside the McGovern campaign's HQ after hours. Many were thankful that, finally, Nixon, that rat bastard, was getting the book thrown at him, but for this? He hadn't been impeached for the failure that was the War on Drugs, or knowingly tapping the phones of popular figures he didn't like, or knowing his Vice President hadn't been filing his taxes properly, or the state-sponsored assassination of that one Chilean politician, fuck, even giddily directing B-52 bombers to incinerate Cambodian farmers, and test out his new nerve agents on Vietnamese children? It was a B&E that finally did it for you, they pondered?

That anger didn't dissipate when the new Vice President-turned President ("Nobody voted for Ford") ended up covering his former boss with an unconditional pardon for anything he 'might have done illegally'. They seethed as they saw Nixon flash the double V after getting away with war crimes only to be whisked away on a helicopter for a quiet retirement. So naturally they tried to channel their anger in to a constructive outlet; even if, yes, the Democratic challenger was a doddery Peanut farmer, they were sure as shit not going to vote for Ford ("Nobody voted for Ford"). You could imagine how that anger came frothing back as the seventies rolled on; the New York City blackout, the petrol shortage, the Iranian hostage crisis, Koreagate. Mr. Peanut was begrudgingly renominated, and the Republicans picked the former director of the CIA, because of course they did. They might've picked a former actor-turned-Governor instead, but he met his end after a nail bomb exploded in his face. They never figured out who mailed it, but that's yet another random tragedy to chalk up to the American zeitgeist.

As the post-Watergate dissatisfaction boomed, a particular voice on the intellectual circuit rang home with more and more dissatisfied Americans. He derided the Republicans as fools who whined about the decay of traditional values yet enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth, while at the same time calling out the Democrats as anti-individualists who tend to focus on defeat and despair. On his first appearance on William Buckley's "Firing Line" he made water-cooler talk by diagnosing the Great American Problem -- encompassing poverty, crime, rape, divorce, and the general existential malaise -- was on a government that no longer represented it's constituents. He appealed all at once to the cult of individualism on the right and the distrust of "The Man" on the left. When New York's lights went out in '77, he was now on the news, reprimanding looters and looted alike for their over-reliance on big business, commercialism and a machine bigger than all of them combined. He spoke with striking farmers and lambasted automation, he spoke with middle-class suburbanites and badmouthed the rat-race the industrial revolution had mapped - he spoke foe the common man, the blue collar, the real America.

Clearly, he was very smart about all of this.

View attachment 49607
Oh dear lord
 
Independence Day
Britain is, some would say, unlike other states. Many would say that it is sui generis; in a category all on its own, completely unique. There is, of course, some merit to this theory. It is one of only few island states, and is known globally for the size of its legislature, which is in comparison to the legislative organs of similar states by far the largest in terms of number of members.

Despite this perception of uniqueness among the common people, however, it had generally been accepted by the experts that Britain was - when you looked at it closely - not quite as incomparable to the other states as it so claimed. Like other states it was a bona fide democracy, like other states it had a health service and social security system which was hollowed out, like other states it had critical transport infrastructure that was quite literally crumbling by the wayside. Britain was not so special, they said, it was a state like any other.

People don't much like being told that they are wrong; particularly not by out of touch elites who do not know the first thing about Britishness. The British disliked that very much. This dislike turned to anger, and that anger turned to outrage.

Enter Nigel Farage. You might think that a former stockbroker is an odd choice to lead the vanguard of the People's Outrage, and you would be right. But he and his party were driven by oddities; his party was a strange alliance of populists and nationalists and anti-everythingists. It was defined by British nationalism, a quizzical admixture of right- and left-wing populism, and a disdain for the status quo.

Farage hated the elites, and the elites hated Farage. They said he was unelectable; they said his plans were untenable; they said that he and his party would never win an election. But as the election neared, the polls tightened.

In the end, the experts had been wrong. None of them had predicted the political earthquake which came their way.

Nigel Farage's party emerged from the electoral battlefield as an undisputed victor. Farage was able to form his government, to chart his own course for Britain. A cold shiver crept down the spine of the government in Washington, a time of opportunity was sensed by Brussels, and an outbreak of joyous fervour swept London.

On election night, Farage addressed Britain, and left a warning for the world; "I now dare to dream that the dawn is coming up on an independent United Kingdom. Let November 10th be Britain's Independence Day!"

Britain would now try to secede from the United States.

2016 election.png
 
Independence Day
Britain is, some would say, unlike other states. Many would say that it is sui generis; in a category all on its own, completely unique. There is, of course, some merit to this theory. It is one of only few island states, and is known globally for the size of its legislature, which is in comparison to the legislative organs of similar states by far the largest in terms of number of members.

Despite this perception of uniqueness among the common people, however, it had generally been accepted by the experts that Britain was - when you looked at it closely - not quite as incomparable to the other states as it so claimed. Like other states it was a bona fide democracy, like other states it had a health service and social security system which was hollowed out, like other states it had critical transport infrastructure that was quite literally crumbling by the wayside. Britain was not so special, they said, it was a state like any other.

People don't much like being told that they are wrong; particularly not by out of touch elites who do not know the first thing about Britishness. The British disliked that very much. This dislike turned to anger, and that anger turned to outrage.

Enter Nigel Farage. You might think that a former stockbroker is an odd choice to lead the vanguard of the People's Outrage, and you would be right. But he and his party were driven by oddities; his party was a strange alliance of populists and nationalists and anti-everythingists. It was defined by British nationalism, a quizzical admixture of right- and left-wing populism, and a disdain for the status quo.

Farage hated the elites, and the elites hated Farage. They said he was unelectable; they said his plans were untenable; they said that he and his party would never win an election. But as the election neared, the polls tightened.

In the end, the experts had been wrong. None of them had predicted the political earthquake which came their way.

Nigel Farage's party emerged from the electoral battlefield as an undisputed victor. Farage was able to form his government, to chart his own course for Britain. A cold shiver crept down the spine of the government in Washington, a time of opportunity was sensed by Brussels, and an outbreak of joyous fervour swept London.

On election night, Farage addressed Britain, and left a warning for the world; "I now dare to dream that the dawn is coming up on an independent United Kingdom. Let November 10th be Britain's Independence Day!"

Britain would now try to secede from the United States.
It took me way too long to understand what’s going on, but damn that’s hot.
 
1644359766716.png
1644358026549.png

Free the UK has to be one of the weirdest political parties in the west. Most political parties are pretty straightforward. In the US you got the left-wing populist Democrats and the quasi-Libertarian Republicans. Then in Italy, you've got the Communist Party and the Christian Democratic People's Party. In Germany, you've got the Social Democrats and the center-right Christian Democratic Parties in the CDU and the CSU.

Free the UK is not an easy party to pin down ideologically. As the 2024 election dawns closer how did we get this mess of anarchists, liberals, libertarian socialists, and Eurosceptics?

It all has to do with the 1985 Democratic Leadership election. For some background Prime Minister Roy Jenkins led the Democrats (formerly an alliance between the Liberals and the SDP) to a landslide defeat, only retaining 51 seats after winning 149 seats in 1982. The landslide defeat was an embarrassment to the once-proud party that fell so far. As the leadership election shaped up that the old Libertarian wing of the Liberal Party was going to be pushed to the sidelines. These rebels who begrudgingly joined the Democrats weren't very accepting of the new moderate order. The election became a three-way race between David Penhaligon, Richard Wainwright, and the radical candidate of Michael Meadowcroft. Meadowcroft was at heart an anarchist but by conviction a constitutionalist. This was the last fight Meadowcroft, and the radicals ever fought in the Democrats. Meadowcroft due to the moderate vote being split came in second, ahead of Wainwright but on the second ballot, he lost 67%-33% in an embarrassing showing for the radicals. The campaign was what truly convinced Meadowcroft to leave the party. He was attacked for his anti-war views which he was accused of being unpatriotic for opposing Kinnock sending ten warships to the Falkland Islands during the Argentinian Revolution. Furthermore, he was attacked for his libertarian view that all drugs should be decriminalized and his support for a united Ireland. Both Jenkins and Penhaligon ruthlessly attacked him as a dangerous radical who would be akin to Michael Foot. Then they attacked him for receiving the endorsement of Tim Beaumont, a member of the House of Lords. Anti-Meadowcroft conservatives and Democrats quickly found out Beaumont was a supporter of trans rights, and they quickly capitalized on this. Fliers were put near the convention saying 'vote for the Democrat, not the anti-children candidate' with a cartoon of Meadowcroft holding a transgender flag. This went over as well as you expected as both Penhaligon and Jenkins condemned the posters, but the damage was done. Meadowcroft and Beaumont were smeared by both Democratic and Conservative outlets who were hell-bent on turning transgender folks into their next scapegoat. Disgusted, Meadowcroft used his allocated speaking time to denounce the Democratic Party, saying:

"The Democratic Party is a disgrace to the principles of liberalism. At one point we stood as the defenders of the poor and the oppressed. Since we've been absorbed by moderates whose foot soldiers attack anyone that dares to resist the status quo that has abandoned the common man. From now on I am not a Democrat as I do not stand for slander, bigotry, neo-imperialism, and Thatcherite-lite policies that have dismantled the rights of every Briton. I cannot in good conscience be a member of the Democrats as I am a liberal, not a moderate."

Most in attendance booed Meadowcroft and his supporters out of the building as he and Beaumont left to create their own party, which they claimed would allow a "fresh start for the UK". Almost nobody even took Meadowcroft seriously. In fact, the intra-party controversy exploded into the national spotlight. Tabloid papers who struggled to find a decent hatred fueled story on a royal family member or the Kinnock Ministry found their next target in transgender individuals. Small in numbers and even smaller in allies. A perfect target for the tabloid press. Meadowcroft wasn't particurly concerned with transgender individuals at first but with the Pink and Blue Scare in full swing he knew he had to take a stance. A week after the Democratic Leadership election on May 7th, 1987, Meadowcroft and Beaumont officially announced their new party. Free the UK. The party's ideology was hard to pin down as it borrowed from a mixture of socialist and liberal positions. The party supported nationalizing the water industry, LGBTQ+ rights, nuclear disarmament, ending UK support for the Pinochet regime, defunding MI6, Palestinian rights, and the rights of the Kurds in Iraq. Early members of the party were Tim Beaumont, Peter Hitchens who became involved in the UK Humanist Society, Simon Hughes whose disgust with the lack of a pro-LGBTQ+ platform caused him to join the Free the UK Party, and the Eurosceptic Alan Sked. In 1988 Hughes and Meadowcroft were elected to Parliament much to the shock of the Democrats. Meadowcroft resigned as leader in 1994 after gaining only one seat in 1993 despite discontent with the Kinnock Ministry.

During the 90s and 2000s they only had a maximum of four seats but in the 2010s they managed to threaten become a serious threat to the three party triopoly in the UK. After the 2010 Rainbow Recession due to the Rainbow Revolutions in Asia that led to an increase in oil prices and the Macau Stock Market Crash. With a new leader in longtime MP and self-declared "Liberal Socialist" Robert Kilroy-Silk who promised to end the austerity implemented by the Major and Harman Ministries and leave the EU who he viewed as Thatcherite and a tool of the rich to exploit poor countries. In 2015 he led the party to an increase from five seats to fifteen. Despite accusations of antisemitism due to his fiery and brazen opposition to Israel and the article "we owe the Israeli's nothing" which said that Israel was an imperialist project that was comparable to Second Russian Empire's crimes in Chechnya and Azerbaijan or Sanjay Gandi's crimes against humanity in India. Immediately, this was condemned by all three parties' other parties. Even the Greens condemned the article as antisemitic, but the party stood by Kilroy-Silk despite. Still, this didn't change much until Kilroy-Silk led Free UK to a seven-seat lost in 2015 who was expected to gain a seat or two until he wrote the article. He was then replaced by Giles Fraser who promised to be just as fiery and populist but less controversial. During the 2016 EU membership Referendum Free the UK was at the forefront of the campaign. Despite Prime Minister Boff's attempts the referendum failed but the discontent never went away. Fraser without the mercy expected of a preacher attacked the EU as corrupt and pointed to Italy's exit out of the EU in 2013 as a shining example on how it could work. Furthermore, he pointed to the examples of EU enforced austerity in Poland and the former nation of Belgium as examples of EU tyranny. With Britain at a crossroads in 2019 between four pro-EU parties Free the UK presented the only anti-EU choice with seats in Parliament. Fraser quickly racked up endorsements from the George Galloways far left Socialist Labor Federation and the Nigel Farage's far-right Magna Carta Party. With the unpopularity of Dominic Reave's government, Evan Harris's unabashed pro-EU position, and Tom Watson's quasi-populist but terribly ran campaign, Free the UK spiked to 15% of the vote and forty-one seats. Fraser made good on his promise of no coalitions as the Democrats, Greens, and Conservatives managed to scrape together a coalition. With Euroscepticism at an all-time high and the Second Pink and Blue Scare in full swing as the issue of whether transgender folks have human rights dominates the discourse, Free the UK is at an all-time high in polling.

Currently the party manifesto includes universal rights for transgender individuals, a second referendum on EU membership, a Green New Deal, nuclear disarmament, proportional representation, a 60% cut in subsidies for private education, an increase from 2 billion pounds to 10 billion pounds for the Ministry of Preventive Healthcare, and a ban on government surveillance of phones and computers without a warrant. The Manifesto's name? A Fresh Start for the UK.

First I got the logo from wikicommons (Link). The Robert Kilroy-Silk controversy over the Israel article is a reference to his "we don't owe the Arabs anything" article. Israel ITTL pisses off the west with its failure to get a peace deal at Camp David in 1979. This leads to a more aggressive foreign policy that's goal is to keep the Arab powers busy which blows up in their face due to their support for Hussein's invasion of Iran during the Iranian Civil War. Not to mention the Second Arab-Israeli War that starts as Syrian and Israeli forces clash in Lebanon, causing a war that further angers the West as the Suez becomes a combat zone. Under the Cianci administration relations take a historic turnaround from very friendly to very cold and distant. The gist is that the Middle East is a mess of alliances, religious conflict, tinpot dictators, and revolutions. Liberal Socialism is essentially a form of quasi-libertarian socialism that opposes unfettered capitalism, mass nationalizations of industry besides essentials that they believe shouldn't be ran by corporations, and is broadly pacifist ITTL
 

Attachments

  • 1644286568954.png
    1644286568954.png
    102.5 KB · Views: 3
  • 1644286593605.png
    1644286593605.png
    46.5 KB · Views: 4
Thunder Dome
In the lead-up to the Iowa caucuses, the question was not "Who?", but rather "Why?"

Sure, Republicans could have nominated a knowledgeable and appealing (if not particularly charismatic) defense policy expert in Victor Renuart. Renuart had served in the Keating (and subsequently Haytaian) administrations as Secretary of Defense, and in that time had built a name for himself as both an appealing nonpartisan figure but also a future political candidate - a reputation he intended to cash in on following his defeat of incumbent Michael Merrifield in the 2014 Colorado gubernatorial election. But, alas, Renuart faced calls of being too ambitious, too new to the electoral scene to be a viable candidate against President Brown in November.

They could have chosen the fresh new face on the scene, Neel Kashkari of California. Kashkari, like Renuart, had unexpectedly unseated a popular six-term incumbent, Dianne Feinstein, in the 2014 gubernatorial election; however, also like Renuart, Kashkari was also labeled as being too opportunistic - and he lacked Renuart's establishment credibility, so it was abundantly clear that it wouldn't be him. And what about Rich Stanek, Minnesota's hard-charging junior Senator? Stanek had the law-and-order credentials which were ever so much of a boost in a party that counted among its modern heroes Lee Baca, Ray Kelly, and Frank Rizzo. But he was uncharacteristically low-profile for a Republican presidential candidate, and had faced allegations of forgery and racism not just during his tenure as Senator, but also as Hennepin County Sheriff.

So the race came down to two. The second of those two, the less successful, was outsider Kentucky Governor Brett Guthrie, a dyed-in-the-wool conservative and a hero among the right for his successful attempts to abolish the Federal Loan Relief Program during his time in the House. But Guthrie, for all his credentials, was just not the candidate for the time.

Which brings us to the chosen one. His path to the nomination had not been linear (and it still wasn't) - once a well-established U.S. Senator, he had resigned his seat in 1997 in disgrace after a 20-year stint in the body following a score of criminal accusations ranging from extortion to racketeering to witness tampering. There were few who expected him to still be relevant even ten years later, but when in 2010 he won the gubernatorial election of the state he had once served in the Senate (on a bold anti-corruption platform, no less), the buzz started. His supporters argued that any politician who was that resilient practically deserved the presidency; his critics? Well, let's just say they didn't have to do much digging for opposition research. But Iowa voters loved him. His gladhanding, his affability, his military background. It was almost as if the fact that his corruption had nearly brought down the United States government twenty years prior didn't matter.

So when he beat Guthrie in the Iowa caucuses by over 20 percentage points and tens of thousands of votes, there was little surprise, but much disappointment. How on earth could Republicans attack the Brown administration for being the most corrupt in fifty years when their candidate had served ten years in federal prison?

They wouldn't have to worry. Three days after he won the Iowa caucuses, he died at 74, having not disclosed a colon cancer diagnosis from three years earlier.

1644632516345.png
 
Last edited:
QZ0CDiI.png
When George Lucas sold Lucasfilm to Disney in 2012, no one knew what would come next, only that Disney would surely be making new Star Wars movies. They soon confirmed their plans to make a new trilogy of movie set after the events of the original trilogy. Although George Lucas had left them scripts, outlines, and other scattered notes for his various visions of a sequel trilogy, Disney decided to scrap these ideas and start anew. They brought on Michael Arndt (Toy Story 3, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire) to write a new screenplay. Then they set about to find the director who would helm this massive project. The main candidates were Jon Favreau, Brad Bird, David Fincher, and J.J. Abrams. Favreau had major successes with the Iron Man and John Carter franchises, both of which were at this point under the Disney umbrella. However, he declined in order to focus on his other projects, having been burned out by his previous work with major franchises, all of which had been much smaller undertakings than Star Wars. Bird had done numerous successful animated films, including The Incredibles and The Incredibles 2 for Pixar, but his live action career didn't have the same amount of success, with 1906 having a complicated production process and Tomorrowland flopping at the box office. J.J. Abrams seemed to be the top choice at one point, but he was under contract to make Star Trek 3 and did not want to operate two major franchises at the same time.

After he withdrew himself from consideration, Disney approached Fincher again. Fincher already had a connection to the franchise, having been an assistant cameraman on Return of the Jedi and worked for Industrial Light & Magic early in his career. However, Fincher passed on Episode VII the first time he was approached, due to his concerns about not being able to tell the type of story he wanted and the massive expectations of producing a major blockbuster for the new studio. In early 2014, numerous more candidates had been rumored to pass on the project including Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard, Christopher Nolan, and Guillermo del Toro. Disney CEO Bob Iger was increasing pressure on Lucasfilm head Kathleen Kennedy to get production underway, due to his desire to have at least two films in the trilogy complete before his retirement. Kennedy was ordered to approach earlier choices again with promises of directorial freedom and high budgets. After another meeting with Kennedy, David Fincher accepted the position and was announced in March 2014.

Fincher met with Arndt and began revising the script immediately. Casting was soon underway and that July, a full cast announcement took place at San Diego Comic-Con. Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, and Harrison Ford all announced their return, and Karen Gillan, Daisy Ridley, and John Boyega were introduced as the three main cast members, Benjamin Walker as the villain, with Oscar Isaac and Ben Daniels in undisclosed roles. The film was scheduled for a tentative release date of Christmas 2015.

Principal photography began the following month and was scheduled to last four months. However, production was plagued by delays and was soon extended into early 2015. Due to studio demands from Disney, numerous story changes forced reshoots and constructions of new sets. Lawrence Kasdan was brought in to do script rewrites and directed scenes Fincher was unavailable for due to the overstretched schedule, against Fincher's wishes. Fincher reportedly threatened to quit numerous times and filming paused for one month in early February. During this time, it was apparent that the film would not be completed in time for the scheduled release date, and the release was soon moved back to May 2016, the 39th anniversary of the first Star Wars film. In February 2015, J.J. Abrams was fired from the production of Star Trek 3 and Bob Iger asked Kathleen Kennedy to replace Fincher with Abrams. However, Abrams declined to take over the project due to how much work had already been completed and refused to finish another director's work. Fincher returned to set in March 2016 and filming concluded late in April.

On May 4, 2015, the title of the film was announced to be Star Wars: Aftermath in the first teaser trailer. Fincher directed two weeks of reshoots in June 2015 and began overseeing the editing process with his long time collaborators Angus Wall and Kirk Baxter. However, Fincher refused to make edits demanded by the studio to reduce the runtime and officially quit in October 2015. Upon Kathleen Kennedy's request, Steven Spielberg came in to complete further reshoots and oversee the final editing process. Spielberg brought the runtime down to 146 minutes, short of Fincher's cut which was reportedly 165 to 170 minutes long.

Despite the complicated and arduous production, Aftermath was released on May 25, 2016, as planned, and opened to major critical and audience acclaim. The film became a major box office success, quickly passing $1 billion internationally. It ended up grossing over $1 billion in the United States and Canada, and a further $1 billion internationally, crossing $2 billion and becoming the third and later second-highest grossing film of all time, surpassing Titanic and being behind only Avatar. It is now third again, having been surpassed by Avengers: Endgame.

David Fincher has said very little about his work on the film, and did not make another film for six years. In a 2019 interview shortly before the release of Episode VIII, Fincher stated he "would never work with Disney again" and disavowed blockbuster franchise work. In 2022, while promoting his new film Mank, he said it was a "miracle it came out as well as it did" and "80-90 percent of [his] vision survived, thankfully." Disney also did not comment much on the production process. During the promotional campaign for Aftermath, Kathleen Kennedy said "he did a tremendous job, but we had differences which we had to resolve separately rather than together." Controversially, George Lucas told a reporter "David's original cut was very good, I enjoyed that movie a lot but I enjoyed the one we got too." This led to fans starting a campaign to "release the Fincher Cut" on social media. Fincher rejected these calls and expressed a desire for the final cut to be the only available version of the film. Upon his retirement from Disney in 2020, Bob Iger said he would not invite Fincher to work another project, but that the studio was "indebted" to him for starting the modern Star Wars franchise.
 
Last edited:
The Fifth Constitutional Cycle of the Russian Covenant


The Fifth Constitutional Cycle of the Russian Covenant consisted of several stages. In accordance with the Generational Compact sealed by the
Ura7RlM.png
Young Russia Party in the Revolution of 1870, the Russian Covenant's constitutions are subject to a binding and non-renewable term limit of 30 years. When a Constitution is 12 months from expiration an Instrumental or Constitutional Convention is to be elected. This convention shall be composed on grounds established in negotiations between the major political parties of the previous legislature. Over the course of 12 months, the Convention is tasked with assembling a constitution nowadays often using advisory sessions, regional conventions and non-binding referenda to give direction.

The Russian Covenant remains the only fully Polokenist nation on earth and is bound by the principle that; "Just as a free people should not tolerate being bound to another nation, nor should their liberties and identities be bound to another generation."

Whilst each generation has almost absolute freedom to craft their own political environment, by convention each Constitution shares a few fundamental rights and retains the separation of powers. Each Russian will vote only on one Constitution in their lifetime and this is usually done between the ages of 25 and 54 (as of midnight, January 1st on the year of the Referendum). If conventions are delayed, an individual is unable to vote or under any other circumstances, they are entitled to apply for access to the next Convention. A permanent standing body, the Constitutional Directory, oversees the conduct of Conventions and Referendums and those concerned at missing their opportunity to vote may appeal directly to the Directory.

Constitutions have, in the past, been rejected and this has resulted in Conventions being recalled (hence Ninth Convention's work on the Fifth Constitution and the deviation from neat 30 year cycles). Though never employed, an "Emergency Dissolution" and reversion to a "Basic Constitution" assembled in 1870 is permitted if a Constitution is deemed onerous. A dissolutionary referendum can be triggered by a national petition registered with the Constitutional Directory signed by no less than 15% of the total electorate.

The Fifth Constitution is generally viewed as North Western, particularly in comparison to the "Defensive Measures" embedded in the Fourth - which had been composed as a time of serious international crisis.

The Ninth Constitutional Convention was the first since 1932 to allow partisan participation and observers have hinted that it was the superior organisation of western and reformist groups which allowed for the inclusion of relatively radical passages. Nevertheless, it is considered to be a greater compromise than the Fourth or Second Constitutions which were dominated by militarists and Concordists respectively.

The full proposals of the Ninth Convention were presented to the public on January 1st, 2022, after a series of advisory consultations with the public and partial publications throughout Autumn 2021. The Constitutional Referendum was held on 19 February and resulted in an unexpectedly large majority for "Yes". As a result, the 9th Russian Constitution will enter force on March 1st, 2022, for a period of no longer than 30 years.

XYTdOjO.png








nGmKHkG.png


----------------

So if I'm being completely honest this one got away from me a little bit and it's much longer than it was ever meant to be! I hope it's in time and it isn't considered to be "spammy". I think I read the prompt right that more than one infobox is allowed but if this is considered rude or against the rules then of course I will remove two boxes and submit only one.
 
Last edited:
The Police Force of Ireland, commonly known as the Forsa, is the national police force for Ireland. While existing since 1933 it has existed in its current form since 1996, merging with the Dublin Metropolitan Police and a number of specialised agencies. The Forsa is the third-largest police force in the Commonwealth (after the Metropolitan Police Service and the National Constabulary, the latter of which has jurisdiction in Ireland) in terms of officer numbers, and the largest territorial police force in terms of its geographic area of responsibility.

The Forsa is the successor to the Royal Irish Constabulary, a gendarme-inspired police force founded in the 1830s and controlled by the government of the United Kingdom. This control led to frequent conflicts and constitutional crises in the early Home Rule Era of 1897-1927, due to the UK's refusal to relinquish full control of law enforcement in Ireland. This frequently undermined the authority of Home Rule administration, who on occasion could not properly enforce legislation. This came to head during the Emergency Period of 1925-1931, where the suspension of the Irish Parliament and the draconian statutes of the 1927 War Powers Act were enforced by the RIC, most notably the arrest and detention of many Irish nationalist and labour leaders.

Following the collapse of the Churchill Government and the Commonwealth Constitution Act the Royal Irish Constabulary was abolished, seen as tool of the previous decades and century of English subjugation on Ireland. The Police Force of Ireland was fully controlled by the Home Rule administration; full control over law enforcement was a key tenet of the "fresh start" for Ireland within the new Commonwealth.

Since 1933 the Irish Constabulary has been subject to multiple controversies, including complicity in abuse scandals in the Catholic Church, complicity in organised crime, political interference from successive Home Rule administrations and excessive use of force, especially against labour and dissident nationalist groups. At the same time in the eyes of many politicians and commentators in and outside Ireland the Forsa became a "nationalist shibboleth" in the words of former Radical Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, strongly associated with Irish autonomy and self-governance and the contested "fresh start" for Ireland after the Emergency.


IC.png
 
Last edited:
And we’re down to the last 24 hours! Make sure to get those last-minute entries in before then—the poll and second round thread will be up in exactly one day.
 
And that's it for our inaugural round! Many thanks to everyone who sent in an entry. We've got a total of 8 entries for this round.

Now for the voting—I've attached a poll to this thread, where the eight contestants are listed in order of submission. You're free to vote for as many people as you want. The poll will close in three days, and whoever gets the most votes is the winner!

PS- stay tuned for our next round, which will be up in a few minutes!
 
Back
Top