by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .1,8131,8141,8151,8161,8171,8181,819. . .2,6342,635»

The young ur

Turbeaux wrote:Would anyone be willing to sponsor and/or serve ambassador to Thalassia?
Snipped for space consumption

We have been looking to fill the post of an ambassador for a while, and would gladly take up this post in Thalassia.

Ownzone wrote:I am in Northern Wood's corner on this one. As you said you have more than twelve years of resolutions to review and than you pick one that is 3 months old. You need some pretty good "new" arguments to get this one successfully repealed and frankly I haven't seen those brought forth by you yet. On top of that although you are free to "review" any resolution and come up with your own conclusion but to be fair any nation that has been around less than 2 months that tries to get a commendation repealed that is partly based on "tenacity", "determination", "activity" and "persistance" has not much authority to speak on that topic. I fear you will be wasting your time on this one....

Ownzone and Northern Wood,
We will accept your wisdom and not pursue a doomed cause. We know you two and many others in this Forest have many rings and have put much work into your nations and World Assembly, and we are sorry if we wounded you. When we spoke of a review we was speaking in principle and not purely of what we am endeavoring to do. This commendation in specific may be young, but since we first chanced across it we felt it was a mistake.

The young ur wrote:

~snip~
Ownzone and Northern Wood,
We will accept your wisdom and not pursue a doomed cause. We know you two and many others in this Forest have many rings and have put much work into your nations and World Assembly, and we are sorry if we wounded you. When we spoke of a review we was speaking in principle and not purely of what we am endeavoring to do. This commendation in specific may be young, but since we first chanced across it we felt it was a mistake.

Perhaps you could work with Western continental divide on crafting an environmental proposal. I am sure that some of the resolution authors here would be willing to assist you if you drafted something on the forum. It would definitely take more effort than what you originally had in mind but construction is typically superior to destruction.

I would love to see a resolution addressing microplastic pollution if one does not already exist! Microplastic is environmentally devastating but does not seem to receive much attention.

The young ur

Turbeaux wrote:Perhaps you could work with Western continental divide on crafting an environmental proposal. I am sure that some of the resolution authors here would be willing to assist you if you drafted something on the forum. It would definitely take more effort than what you originally had in mind but construction is typically superior to destruction.

I would love to see a resolution addressing microplastic pollution if one does not already exist! Microplastic is environmentally devastating but does not seem to receive much attention.

Thank you for your quick and eager response Turbeaux, but you snipped the content we were most eager about sharing. We are very eager to be given the go for ambassador work! Secondly, why do you suggest partnership with Western continental divide in particular? Thank you for these suggestion, I look forward to the future.
Older by the moment,
The young ur
P.S. Below post was simply me accidentally quoting myself, sorry.

Post self-deleted by The young ur.

~ Official Government Post ~

Dear friends, citizens, trees, and mycorrhizal fungi,

We have been approached by Thalassia for an embassy, as you already know if you've been paying attention. Veaetmar, the relevant authority from Thalassia, has sort of preempted my introductory message by going to directly to the RMB, because Forest is not sliding into stupidity and authoritarianism, unlike some RL places I can think of. *eye roll*

Anyway, I am just posted up the poll. Remember that in order for this to pass, we would need 2/3rds majority in favor. It's great to see some nations already thinking about ambassadorships. I often wish that Forest were RL instead of other places. We do things so well, and have such great people here.

Regarding Thalassia:

Veaetmar wrote:Hello!

My name is Veaetmar and I am the current Minister of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister in Thalassia. We have sent an embassy request following discussions with your officials about embassy relations over the last few months.

Thalassia was formed by the former natives of Pacifica and we had embassy relations with Forest for a long time as Pacifica (Wiskawga was our ambassador to here). Unfortunately a new embassy was never opened when we created Thalassia and we would like to change that because we always enjoyed and appreciated our friendship with Forest.

Thalassia is a neutral, democratic region with a particular focus on RP, World Assembly affairs and cultural events at the moment. We have six shared embassies and we would love to share embassies with Forest again.

- V

So you know how it goes: vote! Discuss! BE democracy! You are the democracy. The democracy is you.

Your recurring Foreign Affairs Branch,
Ruinenlust :-)

The young ur wrote:Thank you for your quick and eager response Turbeaux, but you snipped the content we were most eager about sharing. We are very eager to be given the go for ambassador work! Secondly, why do you suggest partnership with Western continental divide in particular? Thank you for these suggestion, I look forward to the future.
Older by the moment,
The young ur
P.S. Below post was simply me accidentally quoting myself, sorry.

I applaud your interest in serving as an ambassador. That is why I had no response to that. This is why I suggested working with WCD:

Western continental divide wrote:I'm considering trying my hand at writing my own piece of WA environmental legislation.

-WCD

What is the policy of an on going embassy membership with Forest? A quick random selection of Forests current embassies show that quite a few existing embassies do not meet the criteria to qualify as an embassy region. Are embassies revoked when regions fall below the minimum requirements? If not it seems hardly fair on regions that apply and are refused when existing embassies are below par.

Forrester wrote:What is the policy of an on going embassy membership with Forest? A quick random selection of Forests current embassies show that quite a few existing embassies do not meet the criteria to qualify as an embassy region. Are embassies revoked when regions fall below the minimum requirements? If not it seems hardly fair on regions that apply and are refused when existing embassies are below par.

Given that we have embassies with regions as dead as The Federation of Anarchist Communes and Futaba Aoi, it's pretty safe to say that Forest doesn't cancel embassies that fail the current requirements, and checking the constitution verifies that there don't appear to be requirements for Forest to maintain an embassy.

Looking at the constitution, however, I notice Article 6.6: "Any resident nation of Forest can call for the closure of an embassy with another region, provided they post on the RMB legitimate reasons for their proposal. If there is considerable interest from the Forest community, as determined by the regional government, either the designated foreign minister or the Forest Keeper will create the following poll: “Shall Forest close embassies with [region]?”"

This means if any of our embassies are really bothering you, you could suggest we vote on closing it.

Forrester wrote:What is the policy of an on going embassy membership with Forest? A quick random selection of Forests current embassies show that quite a few existing embassies do not meet the criteria to qualify as an embassy region. Are embassies revoked when regions fall below the minimum requirements? If not it seems hardly fair on regions that apply and are refused when existing embassies are below par.

Haha, welcome to my world. I've been chewing on that for years, now. The thing with dead plants, though, is that if you don't prune them, they usually don't cause active problems, either. And Futaba almost cancelled their embassy with us once they were overrun by raiders rather recently, but that fell through.

Lura wrote:Given that we have embassies with regions as dead as The Federation of Anarchist Communes and Futaba Aoi, it's pretty safe to say that Forest doesn't cancel embassies that fail the current requirements, and checking the constitution verifies that there don't appear to be requirements for Forest to maintain an embassy.

Looking at the constitution, however, I notice Article 6.6: "Any resident nation of Forest can call for the closure of an embassy with another region, provided they post on the RMB legitimate reasons for their proposal. If there is considerable interest from the Forest community, as determined by the regional government, either the designated foreign minister or the Forest Keeper will create the following poll: “Shall Forest close embassies with [region]?”"

This means if any of our embassies are really bothering you, you could suggest we vote on closing it.

And even that route did not exist before we amended Article 6 to provide a pathway for dead/zombie embassies to be closed.

My rationale for not personally pursuing any of them is that I don't really feel like it's my place to do so, as odd as that may seem. I know that in other regions, the Foreign Minister can be a little autocrat in their own right, but that sort of government is the highway to hell, in my opinion.

So, when the previous term's government reformed Article 6, one of my ideas was to provide a pathway for embassies to be closed by the will of the community, from the bottom-up. I am probably never going to ever initiate that process myself, but "any resident nation of Forest" is eligible to take advantage of Article 6.6 on their own behalf. So the door is ajar, and anyone with a legitimate case can push it open and walk through it, and maybe take the region with them.

(Note: Closure votes, just like initial opening votes, require a two-thirds majority to pass. My personal feeling is that if something is 51/49, it's too contentious to really happen well. I would not want to go against nearly half of the community, but if the naysayers are outnumbered 2:1, then it's easier to say that there is a real will on the community's part to move on something. The only exception to this is a continuation vote with a successor region that re-founded, which only requires 50% +1, since the thing would have initially been approved by higher margins, theoretically (unless it had been voted on in the past under the older system).)

Shock, thought I was 3rd in the world for civil rights but it's just Forest still OK though

Good Nations of Forest,
The Ur is currently searching the very deep and expansive archives of the WA for any regulations specifically about vat-produced infants. Concerned with the many finger abrasions being afflicted on our staff from this search, we come to you.
Your increasingly annoyed neighbor,
The young ur

The young ur wrote:Good Nations of Forest,
The Ur is currently searching the very deep and expansive archives of the WA for any regulations specifically about vat-produced infants. Concerned with the many finger abrasions being afflicted on our staff from this search, we come to you.
Your increasingly annoyed neighbor,
The young ur

What is it you are annoyed about? Can't recall any WA resolutions about this specific topic.

Ownzone wrote:What is it you are annoyed about? Can't recall any WA resolutions about this specific topic.

Our annoyance is just with our own inadequate ability to search past resolutions.

The young ur wrote:Good Nations of Forest,
The Ur is currently searching the very deep and expansive archives of the WA for any regulations specifically about vat-produced infants. Concerned with the many finger abrasions being afflicted on our staff from this search, we come to you.
Your increasingly annoyed neighbor,
The young ur

Do you know, I think there may have been a resolution about that. But we're talking so long ago that I can't remember if it was passed in the World Assembly or the [Redacted Due To Copyright].

Greetings all,

New nation, if not to NS, then here, so I'm giving you all greetings.

I think that we should close the embassy with Futaba Aoi, because:

  • It doesn't have enough WA members to have an embassy with Forest.

    What does the Forest community think about this?

  • Outer Bele Levy Epies wrote:I think that we should close the embassy with Futaba Aoi, because:

  • It doesn't have enough WA members to have an embassy with Forest.

    What does the Forest community think about this?

  • I guess that makes sense to close it (makes my job easier), but I still don’t understand why we have embassies with such tiny regions yet we still do not have embassies with any big regions like Anarchy or the European Union

    Middle Barael wrote:I guess that makes sense to close it (makes my job easier), but I still don’t understand why we have embassies with such tiny regions yet we still do not have embassies with any big regions like Anarchy or the European Union

    I think that the small regions were larger when the embassies were created.

    The young ur

    The young ur wrote:Good Nations of Forest,
    The Ur is currently searching the very deep and expansive archives of the WA for any regulations specifically about vat-produced infants. Concerned with the many finger abrasions being afflicted on our staff from this search, we come to you.
    Your increasingly annoyed neighbor,
    The young ur

    We are sorry to quote our own correspondence, but we are in need of more information of like kind. Do any among us know if a resolution that defines sentience exists?

    Outer Bele Levy Epies wrote:I think that we should close the embassy with Futaba Aoi, because:

  • It doesn't have enough WA members to have an embassy with Forest.

    What does the Forest community think about this?

  • Middle Barael wrote:I guess that makes sense to close it (makes my job easier), but I still don’t understand why we have embassies with such tiny regions yet we still do not have embassies with any big regions like Anarchy or the European Union

    The people of Ur are ‘in’ on it. Remove the dead, make way for the living!

    Forestal

    Outer Bele Levy Epies wrote:I think that we should close the embassy with Futaba Aoi, because:

  • It doesn't have enough WA members to have an embassy with Forest.

    What does the Forest community think about this?

  • As Ruinenlust mentioned above, and I'll take their word for it, there is no necessity for older embassies to meet current requirements. Perhaps they also fail to meet the requirements that were laid out at the time the embassy was constructed, legally speaking, and that I couldn't tell you.

    Personally, I'm of the POV that embassies with dead regions need to be pruned.
    1. Potential forest fires (deadwood and staging areas for inappropriate raiders.)
    2. It blocks the view of the living trees (more active regions and those wishing to know more about Forest.)

    Edited for clarity.

    Forestal wrote:As Ruinenlust mentioned above, and I'll take their word for it, there is no necessity for older embassies to meet current requirements. Perhaps they also fail to meet the requirements that were laid out at the time the embassy was constructed, legally speaking, and that I couldn't tell you.

    Personally, I'm of the POV that embassies with dead regions need to be pruned.
    1. Potential forest fires (deadwood and staging areas for inappropriate raiders.)
    2. It blocks the view of the living trees (more active regions and those wishing to know more about Forest.)

    Edited for clarity.

    Not to mention it is harder for Ruinenlust and me to garden the grove (It’s harder to fill all of the regions with ambassadors; I’m trying to keep up with the Forest metaphors)

    On a side note, I’ve noticed a thread in the forums entitled “Should Charges for Animal Cruelty be Stronger?”. Basically the story goes a group of teenagers purposefully destroyed a swan’s nest, causing the swan’s mate to leave them and the swan mother to die of a “broken heart”. The teenagers received only a slap on the wrist. So far, the consensus seems to be that the punishments should be a small period in jail (for adults) and community service (for minors) if the animal is murdered, and community service if the animal is injured or if the people did not know it would kill or injure the animal. Forest, what are your thoughts on the issue?

    The young ur wrote:We are sorry to quote our own correspondence, but we are in need of more information of like kind. Do any among us know if a resolution that defines sentience exists?

    We have located the resolution, it does not define sentient, but it describes sapience (Rights Of Sapient Species), "Defines: "Sapient Being" as any physical entity possessing the ability to: Think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic; Choose a sensible course of action or considered response; Experience subjectively, feel, or recognize, discern, envision, understand, or attain awareness of."

    Middle Barael wrote:Not to mention it is harder for Ruinenlust and me to garden the grove (It’s harder to fill all of the regions with ambassadors; I’m trying to keep up with the Forest metaphors)

    Good point and one I hadn't considered from the FA perspective.

    Forestal

    The young ur wrote:We have located the resolution, it does not define sentient, but it describes sapience (Rights Of Sapient Species), "Defines: "Sapient Being" as any physical entity possessing the ability to: Think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic; Choose a sensible course of action or considered response; Experience subjectively, feel, or recognize, discern, envision, understand, or attain awareness of."

    There was also a more recent failed proposal on blood sports that had issues with a number of flaws regarding the failure to distinguish between "sentience" and "sapience" definitionally speaking. Worth reading to avoid similar mistakes.
    My personal problem with it, primarily, was the fact that who among homo sapiens sapiens can tell me that an animal, or a tree, is nonsentient? We're the chattering monkeys requiring words and not them.
    Edit: incorrect word choice.

    The young ur wrote:We have located the resolution, it does not define sentient, but it describes sapience (Rights Of Sapient Species), "Defines: "Sapient Being" as any physical entity possessing the ability to: Think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic; Choose a sensible course of action or considered response; Experience subjectively, feel, or recognize, discern, envision, understand, or attain awareness of."

    This may be wrong, but I think the difference is that sentient would refer to species such as humans that are able to build complex societies AND think rationally and/or subjectively, whereas sapience only requires the ability to think rationally and/or subjectively.

    This means that species such as Orangutans, Chimapnzees, Elephants, and dolphins would be sapient, but not sentient, but humans are both sapient and sentient. I’m not sure though about creatures such as cats and dogs; they can think subjectively and rationally, but this often is more about survival instincts than it is about complex thought.

    Edit: I just saw that we were #5 in trout farming in Forest. I’m not sure if I am happy about this, as it means we are using a lot of resources, but then again the recommended diets from the government are “climatarianism” (avoiding red meat and non-local food as much as possible), “pescopollo vegetarianism” (not eating red meat, but eating fish and poultry; my real life diet most of the time), and Pescatarianism, meaning fish is not considered taboo here, and I suppose that we use aquaculture instead of normal fishing.

    «12. . .1,8131,8141,8151,8161,8171,8181,819. . .2,6342,635»

    Advertisement