by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .1,9771,9781,9791,9801,9811,9821,983. . .2,6342,635»

Just be on your guard.

~ Official Government Post ~

Hey everyone, just a little reminder that for every WA vote I have, our region is that much more secure and powerful on the world stage! I am extremely grateful for everyone's support with their endorsements (as well as with the strong cross-endorsing in many regions, which binds us together more closely).

Having said that, please consider endorsing me if you have not done so! It's always very much appreciated!
Awhaiti Kaiatu, Borgoui, Coranova, Elfrard, Enaretos, Esterild, Hathoratrix, Higara, Microsoftoffice, Uiiop, and Zuji.
:-D

Thank you to everyone, again! Each of your presences contributes to the stability and growth of the region!
Ruinenlust

Lord Dominator, Terrabod, Lura, Middle Barael, and 2 othersNation of ecologists, and Garbelia

Dark kreston wrote:HEY GUYS! The Black Hawks are recruiting again and I think they are up to something evil. I think they are planning to raid defender regions.

If they're going to raid defender regions then we here in Forest won't have anything to worry about as we are neutral. Still not terribly worried about our raid prospects even if you're wrong, though.

What's that raid thing?

Ruinenlust, Terrabod, Middle Barael, and Nation of ecologists

Nova patris wrote:What's that raid thing?

You know that Ruinenlust is our regional Delegate because they have the most World Assembly endorsements in the region, right? Well, there are some groups of NationStates members (called "raiders") that coordinate with each other to rush into a region at the same time and endorse each other to try to make one of them the new Delegate of that region. They can then kick out the people who make that region their home by using the Delegate's ejecting powers. There are other people, called "defenders", who try to prevent raiders from successfully raiding other regions. In fact, there are whole regions full of raiders and whole regions full of defender nations too. Forest isn't a raider or a defender region - we don't bother with that sort of thing and prefer to mind our own business. That might not stop raiders from targeting us, though!

Having a Founder is a good way to protect Forest from raiders (since the Founder cannot be ejected and has the power to kick out the raiders) but of course our Founder, Errinundera, is currently inactive. The next best thing is for Ruinenlust to have lots of endorsements so the raiders need more endorsements to take the Delegacy and so that Ruinenlust has enough influence to kick the raiders out (since ejecting nations from Forest will cost Ruinenlust some influence points). It's also good if we all endorse each other, because the more influence you and I have, the more it will cost the raiders to kick us out if they do overthrow Ruinenlust.

I'm not an expert on raiding or defending, so I hope that's correct.

Frieden-und Freudenland, Mount Seymour, Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, and 6 othersLura, Middle Barael, Nation of ecologists, Oasis de lyhon, Garbelia, and Nova patris

Errinundera has been "active" lately, at least there is this "Most Recent Government Activity: 5 days ago".

EDIT: I'm open to mutual endorsements with everyone/anyone, if it helps anything.

Love and Nature wrote:Errinundera has been "active" lately, at least there is this "Most Recent Government Activity: 5 days ago".

EDIT: I'm open to mutual endorsements with everyone/anyone, if it helps anything.

Ok, active on NationStates, inactive as Founder.

And me too I guess haha.

Terrabod wrote:You know that Ruinenlust is our regional Delegate because they have the most World Assembly endorsements in the region, right? Well, there are some groups of NationStates members (called "raiders") that coordinate with each other to rush into a region at the same time and endorse each other to try to make one of them the new Delegate of that region. They can then kick out the people who make that region their home by using the Delegate's ejecting powers. There are other people, called "defenders", who try to prevent raiders from successfully raiding other regions. In fact, there are whole regions full of raiders and whole regions full of defender nations too. Forest isn't a raider or a defender region - we don't bother with that sort of thing and prefer to mind our own business. That might not stop raiders from targeting us, though!

Having a Founder is a good way to protect Forest from raiders (since the Founder cannot be ejected and has the power to kick out the raiders) but of course our Founder, Errinundera, is currently inactive. The next best thing is for Ruinenlust to have lots of endorsements so the raiders need more endorsements to take the Delegacy and so that Ruinenlust has enough influence to kick the raiders out (since ejecting nations from Forest will cost Ruinenlust some influence points). It's also good if we all endorse each other, because the more influence you and I have, the more it will cost the raiders to kick us out if they do overthrow Ruinenlust.

I'm not an expert on raiding or defending, so I hope that's correct.

I'm no expert on raiding/defending either, but I believe that your explanation is missing a distinction between executive and non-executive delegates, though is otherwise sound.

Executive delegates essentially have the same powers a founder has, and they are what are most important to raiders, since I think they can also grant powers to others in addition to having reasonable power themselves, like border control (ejecting natives/defenders at a cost to influence).

Non-executive delegates do not have these extensive powers and would have to be granted them by the founder of the region. They are only the primary voting voice of the World Assembly and generally do not have any other powers simply because they are the delegate.

Founderless regions, either that have never had a founder (like the Pacifics) or regions with founders that have ceased to exist, can only have an executive delegate, as there is no power above them that can take the highest power in their place. This makes them the most vulnerable to raids and hence why many have endorsement caps in place. Regions with an active founder, like Forest, I think can have an executive or non-executive delegate, as decided by the founder. Ruinenlust, our delegate, is non-executive and as such has no authority over borders. If raiders stole the position of WA delegate from Ruinenlust, they would not be able to do anything, which is what makes regions with founders more secure (if they have a non-executive delegate, though even with an executive delegate I'm sure the founder would be able to intervene).

If a region with a non-executive delegate has their founder cease to exist, then the non-executive delegate will become an executive delegate as the region is now founderless. Our founder Errinundera's radio silence for the last few months and the stasis we have been in governmentally since about March/April 2020 as a result has created fears that they might cease to exist and Forest would as a result be left more vulnerable to raiders.

Lura wrote:-snip-

Argh, the number of times I've forgotten about how we couldn't kick people out for Z-day!

Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, Lura, Middle Barael, and 2 othersNation of ecologists, and Garbelia

Terrabod wrote:Argh, the number of times I've forgotten about how we couldn't kick people out for Z-day!

Ahh, Z and N days. The two days in the year where it is acceptable to say "I LAUNCH ALL MY NUKES AT YOU" and "I deploy Zombies and kill everyone". When you can boot people out for clicking a button, and when you can watch as your delegate or founder passwords the region, or blocks all entry.

If your founder is inactive though, and your WA delegate is non-executive, it is miserable. You all die.

As a sidenote, I got rid of vegetarianism, and my otters are happy, but my cows are not. Ever heard of pescetarianism Max Barry?

Frieden-und Freudenland, Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, Terrabod, and 3 othersMiddle Barael, Nation of ecologists, and Oasis de lyhon

Nation of ecologists

Lura wrote:If they're going to raid defender regions then we here in Forest won't have anything to worry about as we are neutral. Still not terribly worried about our raid prospects even if you're wrong, though.

I mean Ruinenlust has a huge amount of endorsements so we're pretty secure. it would need to be a huge, huge operation from over 5 raider regions. So no, I don't think Forest has to worry. However there has been a really worrying increase of raids lately.

The fact that our delegate has limited powers causes us problems when it comes to holding elections and appointing officers with our inattentive founder. It does mean that a raider delegate would also have limited powers and couldn't really do anything damaging.

Getting over 100 endorsements to overtake Ruinenlust would be a truly massive raid. It's unlikely to appear out of the blue. A serious attempt would require a sleeper - a raider willing to spend weeks posing as a new resident and exchanging endorsements until they were within striking distance. During that time they'd be unable to do any other raiding because you can't have multiple WA nations.

I think a temporary capturing of Forests delegacy would be attractive for bragging rights. The Hawks once rushed in and endorsed the nation with the next most endorsements after the delegate just to be able to say they'd broken a longstanding delegate's streak. It causes no actual harm to the region other than being slightly embarrassing.

If the founder ever ceases to exist or agrees to grant executive powers to the delegate then things will be different. A raider delegate could then do a bit more harm (still limited by the humongous influence levels in Forest) and in that case we might need security measures such as a cap on how many endorsements people are allowed.

Hope this makes sense.

Nation of ecologists wrote:I mean Ruinenlust has a huge amount of endorsements so we're pretty secure. it would need to be a huge, huge operation from over 5 raider regions. So no, I don't think Forest has to worry. However there has been a really worrying increase of raids lately.

Even if they did topple Ruinenlust the new delegate wouldn't have the power to do anything unless Errinundera betrays us and gives them executive authority (or ceases to exist).

Garbelia wrote:Ahh, Z and N days. The two days in the year where it is acceptable to say "I LAUNCH ALL MY NUKES AT YOU" and "I deploy Zombies and kill everyone". When you can boot people out for clicking a button, and when you can watch as your delegate or founder passwords the region, or blocks all entry.

If your founder is inactive though, and your WA delegate is non-executive, it is miserable. You all die.

As a sidenote, I got rid of vegetarianism, and my otters are happy, but my cows are not. Ever heard of pescetarianism Max Barry?

We had those exact qualities of our founder and delegate this most recent Z-Day and yet we had no infected most of the event and ended in quite high positions for Most Survivors, Most Survivors + No Quarantine and Most Survivors + No Infected. I wasn't in Forest for any previous Z-Day, but it seems like possibly our greatest success ever, and usually we quarantine!

Ruinenlust, Love and Nature, Lord Dominator, Uan aa Boa, and 4 othersTerrabod, Nation of ecologists, Oasis de lyhon, and Dark kreston

Garbelia wrote:Ahh, Z and N days. The two days in the year where it is acceptable to say "I LAUNCH ALL MY NUKES AT YOU" and "I deploy Zombies and kill everyone". When you can boot people out for clicking a button, and when you can watch as your delegate or founder passwords the region, or blocks all entry.

If your founder is inactive though, and your WA delegate is non-executive, it is miserable. You all die.

As a sidenote, I got rid of vegetarianism, and my otters are happy, but my cows are not. Ever heard of pescetarianism Max Barry?

Yeah I’m a pescatarian, but I’m doing it in the hopes of eventually transitioning to Vegetarianism. It’s been going well, and my only exceptions are Ethiopian and Indian food, which I cannot live without despite rarely even having them.

Dark kreston wrote:HEY GUYS! The Black Hawks are recruiting again and I think they are up to something evil. I think they are planning to raid defender regions.

Yeah, I’ve heard about Operation Boom Beach, and I know that they’ve been targeting defender and neutral regions alike, but we have a non-executive delegacy and so I’m not too worried.

Nation of ecologists wrote:I mean Ruinenlust has a huge amount of endorsements so we're pretty secure. it would need to be a huge, huge operation from over 5 raider regions. So no, I don't think Forest has to worry. However there has been a really worrying increase of raids lately.

I mean this Operation Boom Beach somehow has garnered up 17 different regions, including The Black Hawks, the North Pacific, East Pacific, West Pacific, the Pacific, Osiris, Balder, Lily, and others. They easily could seize the Delegacy of Forest, but it would be useless since it is non-executive. I say just be on a little higher alert than usual, but not too high alert

Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, Nation of ecologists, and Garbelia

Nation of ecologists

Middle Barael wrote:Yeah I’m a pescatarian, but I’m doing it in the hopes of eventually transitioning to Vegetarianism. It’s been going well, and my only exceptions are Ethiopian and Indian food, which I cannot live without despite rarely even having them.

Yeah, I’ve heard about Operation Boom Beach, and I know that they’ve been targeting defender and neutral regions alike, but we have a non-executive delegacy and so I’m not too worried.I mean this Operation Boom Beach somehow has garnered up 17 different regions, including The Black Hawks, the North Pacific, East Pacific, West Pacific, the Pacific, Osiris, Balder, Lily, and others. They easily could seize the Delegacy of Forest, but it would be useless since it is non-executive. I say just be on a little higher alert than usual, but not too high alert

Agreed. I didn't take TP as a raider region, especially since my main is located there.

On the subject of vegetarianism, I myself have been fully vegetarian for I think 2 years now, the last time I ate meat was in a Harveys in a road stop on a road trip to Quebec. And I didn't even order the meat part in it I actually ordered the veggie version of it but they decided to just not bother. Before then I only ate bacon as a meat. I was vegetarian everywhere else. So I guess I was a "baconitarian" for a while there. But its honestly not that hard once you get the hang of it.

Nation of ecologists wrote:Agreed. I didn't take TP as a raider region, especially since my main is located there.

On the subject of vegetarianism, I myself have been fully vegetarian for I think 2 years now, the last time I ate meat was in a Harveys in a road stop on a road trip to Quebec. And I didn't even order the meat part in it I actually ordered the veggie version of it but they decided to just not bother. Before then I only ate bacon as a meat. I was vegetarian everywhere else. So I guess I was a "baconitarian" for a while there. But its honestly not that hard once you get the hang of it.

Yeah before I was Pescatarian, I only ate Fish and Poultry (so no red meat outside of Ethiopian and Indian), and I’ve never eaten pork. But I’m hoping to eventually go vegetarian, it’s just hard considering that like half of my meals have either Fish or Fake Meat of some sort, and there’s that whole thing about too much Soy being unhealthy.

And those 4 Feeders and 2 Sinkers aren’t exactly Raiders or Defenders, they’re more just like regions that have military wings. It’s not like TBH or Lily that are always on one side, they play both sides of the war I think. So don’t fret too much, just because you are a Pacifican doesn’t mean you are endorsing Raiding

Frieden-und Freudenland, Lord Dominator, Nation of ecologists, and Garbelia

Nation of ecologists

Middle Barael wrote:Yeah before I was Pescatarian, I only ate Fish and Poultry (so no red meat outside of Ethiopian and Indian), and I’ve never eaten pork. But I’m hoping to eventually go vegetarian, it’s just hard considering that like half of my meals have either Fish or Fake Meat of some sort, and there’s that whole thing about too much Soy being unhealthy.

And those 4 Feeders and 2 Sinkers aren’t exactly Raiders or Defenders, they’re more just like regions that have military wings. It’s not like TBH or Lily that are always on one side, they play both sides of the war I think. So don’t fret too much, just because you are a Pacifican doesn’t mean you are endorsing Raiding

wait what? Too much soy being unhealthy? oh no. I didn't know that. Hm.

I think I may have been infected by the 'liking-every-post-on-the-RMB' virus. Bad news.

Frieden-und Freudenland, Lord Dominator, Terrabod, The void territories, and 3 othersMiddle Barael, Nation of ecologists, and Nova patris

Nation of ecologists wrote:wait what? Too much soy being unhealthy? oh no. I didn't know that. Hm.

I think they’ve discovered some link between too much soy and breast cancer. Soy products are essentially made from plant estrogen, which can increase the risk of breast cancer apparently. I’m male, but apparently males can also get breast cancer, and I have a couple relatives who have had it, so I’ve been trying to eat less of it, but it’s hard since I’m pescatarian. I meant there are always veggie burgers or fish or completely non-meat foods, but it’s still just hard to avoid the soy meat. Oh well

Garbelia wrote:I think I may have been infected by the 'liking-every-post-on-the-RMB' virus. Bad news.

I was infected with that a looooong time ago. I like any post that I appreciate, even if I’m in a debate I’ll like the opposing persons post

==========

So just out of curiosity, I know that Errinundera doesn’t appear to be starting the election any time soon, but knowing that VH wants to take a break, who would be running for Forest Keeper? I don’t recall anyone mentioning it yet, and I guess it would be helpful to know who the candidates would be before the election begins so we’d be ready.

Nattily dressed anarchists on bicycles

Nation of ecologists wrote:wait what? Too much soy being unhealthy? oh no. I didn't know that. Hm.

It was once thought that soy foods increase the risk of breast cancer. However, eating a moderate amount of soy foods does not increase risk of breast cancer — or other types of cancer. A moderate amount is one to two servings a day of whole-soy foods, such as tofu, soy milk and edamame.

So where did the idea come from that soy increases breast cancer risk? Isoflavones, which are found in soy, are plant estrogens. High levels of estrogen have been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer. However, food sources of soy don't contain high enough levels of isoflavones to increase the risk of breast cancer.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/soy-breast-cancer-risk/faq-20120377

Some of the misunderstandings come from the fact that studies in people and studies in animals may show different results. In some animal studies, rodents that were exposed to high doses of compounds found in soy called isoflavones showed an increased risk of breast cancer. This is thought to be because the isoflavones in soy can act like estrogen in the body, and increased estrogen has been linked to certain types of breast cancer.

But rodents process soy differently from people, and the same results have not been seen in people. Also, doses of isoflavones in the animal studies are much higher than in humans. In fact, in human studies, the estrogen effects of soy seem to either have no effect at all, or to reduce breast cancer risk (especially in Asian countries, where lifelong intake is higher than the US). This may be because the isoflavones can actually block the more potent natural estrogens in the blood.

So far, the evidence does not point to any dangers from eating soy in people, and the health benefits appear to outweigh any potential risk.

https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/soy-and-cancer-risk-our-experts-advice.html

At any rate, you would have to eat absurd amounts of soy before isoflavone exposure even starts to maybe become a concern. Sort of like how you'd have to eat many dozens of apples whole really fast before the amygdalin -> hydrogen cyanide conversion becomes a problem too.

Anyhoo. One of my coworkers who, while not crying over the horrible oppression of the innocent on Parler, likes to do the "soy will make you a cancer ridden gay guy" thing too, so this is one of my triggers. :p

Now, to go brew a nice hot cup of not even remotely enough acrylamide to worry about either. I love me some California, but that nonsense is exceptionally embarrassing.

Nattily dressed anarchists on bicycles wrote:

It was once thought that soy foods increase the risk of breast cancer. However, eating a moderate amount of soy foods does not increase risk of breast cancer — or other types of cancer. A moderate amount is one to two servings a day of whole-soy foods, such as tofu, soy milk and edamame.

So where did the idea come from that soy increases breast cancer risk? Isoflavones, which are found in soy, are plant estrogens. High levels of estrogen have been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer. However, food sources of soy don't contain high enough levels of isoflavones to increase the risk of breast cancer.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/soy-breast-cancer-risk/faq-20120377

Some of the misunderstandings come from the fact that studies in people and studies in animals may show different results. In some animal studies, rodents that were exposed to high doses of compounds found in soy called isoflavones showed an increased risk of breast cancer. This is thought to be because the isoflavones in soy can act like estrogen in the body, and increased estrogen has been linked to certain types of breast cancer.

But rodents process soy differently from people, and the same results have not been seen in people. Also, doses of isoflavones in the animal studies are much higher than in humans. In fact, in human studies, the estrogen effects of soy seem to either have no effect at all, or to reduce breast cancer risk (especially in Asian countries, where lifelong intake is higher than the US). This may be because the isoflavones can actually block the more potent natural estrogens in the blood.

So far, the evidence does not point to any dangers from eating soy in people, and the health benefits appear to outweigh any potential risk.

https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/soy-and-cancer-risk-our-experts-advice.html

At any rate, you would have to eat absurd amounts of soy before isoflavone exposure even starts to maybe become a concern. Sort of like how you'd have to eat many dozens of apples whole really fast before the amygdalin -> hydrogen cyanide conversion becomes a problem too.

Anyhoo. One of my coworkers who, while not crying over the horrible oppression of the innocent on Parler, likes to do the "soy will make you a cancer ridden gay guy" thing too, so this is one of my triggers. :p

Now, to go brew a nice hot cup of not even remotely enough acrylamide to worry about either. I love me some California, but that nonsense is exceptionally embarrassing.

Oh, this is good. I knew that obviously having soy from time to time wouldn’t be harmful, but I was under the impression that having it as a large part of your regular diet would be bad. I’m glad to know that it’s not.

And considering the lack of replies to my previous post, I assume that those who are running wish to keep it a secret for now, so nvm

Frieden-und Freudenland, Lord Dominator, Nation of ecologists, and Garbelia

Nattily dressed anarchists on bicycles wrote:

It was once thought that soy foods increase the risk of breast cancer. However, eating a moderate amount of soy foods does not increase risk of breast cancer — or other types of cancer. A moderate amount is one to two servings a day of whole-soy foods, such as tofu, soy milk and edamame.

So where did the idea come from that soy increases breast cancer risk? Isoflavones, which are found in soy, are plant estrogens. High levels of estrogen have been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer. However, food sources of soy don't contain high enough levels of isoflavones to increase the risk of breast cancer.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/soy-breast-cancer-risk/faq-20120377

Some of the misunderstandings come from the fact that studies in people and studies in animals may show different results. In some animal studies, rodents that were exposed to high doses of compounds found in soy called isoflavones showed an increased risk of breast cancer. This is thought to be because the isoflavones in soy can act like estrogen in the body, and increased estrogen has been linked to certain types of breast cancer.

But rodents process soy differently from people, and the same results have not been seen in people. Also, doses of isoflavones in the animal studies are much higher than in humans. In fact, in human studies, the estrogen effects of soy seem to either have no effect at all, or to reduce breast cancer risk (especially in Asian countries, where lifelong intake is higher than the US). This may be because the isoflavones can actually block the more potent natural estrogens in the blood.

So far, the evidence does not point to any dangers from eating soy in people, and the health benefits appear to outweigh any potential risk.

https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/soy-and-cancer-risk-our-experts-advice.html

At any rate, you would have to eat absurd amounts of soy before isoflavone exposure even starts to maybe become a concern. Sort of like how you'd have to eat many dozens of apples whole really fast before the amygdalin -> hydrogen cyanide conversion becomes a problem too.

Anyhoo. One of my coworkers who, while not crying over the horrible oppression of the innocent on Parler, likes to do the "soy will make you a cancer ridden gay guy" thing too, so this is one of my triggers. :p

Now, to go brew a nice hot cup of not even remotely enough acrylamide to worry about either. I love me some California, but that nonsense is exceptionally embarrassing.

What is your evidence-based stance on monosodium glutamate? Is it merely anti-Asian racism to claim that it is harmful?

And if so, can I write an issue on this? o.O

Nattily dressed anarchists on bicycles

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:What is your evidence-based stance on monosodium glutamate? Is it merely anti-Asian racism to claim that it is harmful?

As far as I'm aware, studies consistently fail to find a link between MSG and purported ill effects of consuming it. And if the info on Wiki is correct, the LD50 (lethal dose, 50% of population) is triple that of plain old table salt in rats.

I also understand that glutamic acid is a natural component of basically all proteins, and is present in a free and tastable form in a wide variety of "natural" foods. So between soy and mozzarella, the lasagna in my fridge is, supposedly, a toxic waste dump.

At any rate, if the works cited on the Wikipedia page are accurate, then reports as to the harmfulness of MSG in Chinese takeout is largely due to a joke in poor taste getting somewhat out of hand.

Nation of ecologists

Errinundera please just start the election cycle,

Middle Barael wrote:I think they’ve discovered some link between too much soy and breast cancer. Soy products are essentially made from plant estrogen, which can increase the risk of breast cancer apparently. I’m male, but apparently males can also get breast cancer, and I have a couple relatives who have had it, so I’ve been trying to eat less of it, but it’s hard since I’m pescatarian. I meant there are always veggie burgers or fish or completely non-meat foods, but it’s still just hard to avoid the soy meat. Oh well

I was infected with that a looooong time ago. I like any post that I appreciate, even if I’m in a debate I’ll like the opposing persons post

==========

So just out of curiosity, I know that Errinundera doesn’t appear to be starting the election any time soon, but knowing that VH wants to take a break, who would be running for Forest Keeper? I don’t recall anyone mentioning it yet, and I guess it would be helpful to know who the candidates would be before the election begins so we’d be ready.

Well they seem to have been active lately, if they're losing interest in the game then they should most likely just drop the writ for the elections as their final act as founder. It doesn't seem to be too hard.

Nation of ecologists wrote:Errinundera please just start the election cycle, Well they seem to have been active lately, if they're losing interest in the game then they should most likely just drop the writ for the elections as their final act as founder. It doesn't seem to be too hard.

I’ starting to think they just have an auto login script and that they’ve completely forgotten about it

Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, Nation of ecologists, and 1 otherGarbelia

«12. . .1,9771,9781,9791,9801,9811,9821,983. . .2,6342,635»

Advertisement