«12. . .300301302303304305306. . .2,6522,653»
Just as I started to compile our environmental rankings arguably are leading environmental nation Liberal Liberals CTEd. It's very hard to get new highly ranked nations because they are generally very old and settled wherever they are. So this is is a real loss for Forest.
Greetings 
Garchyland! Looks like you region has grown quite a bit since I last checked in you guys, congrats! Care to lend us Sheila anteres?
Thanks for the recognition.
I was just about to post that some of my world rankings have improved since you posted the dispatch, but I guess Liberal Liberals CTEing is a bit more important than that.
On the plus side now your most likely Forest's greenest nation, overall. I think it might be fun to have an official ranking system for like the top 10 greenest nation. It could somehow be a compilation of environmental beauty, weather, tourism, eco-friendliness, and possibly longevity and public transportation. I'm not sure if it would be better to use the world ranking or the actual score for these categories and how they should be relatively weighted. I would love to hear everyone's feedback. Doxovia sharing your data mining script might help me, what language is it in?
Was 
Undivulged Principles their main nation, as that is still going, though they haven't logged in for a couple of weeks there either. Hopefully they'll be back.
Errinundera, since you used to know them, do you want to take a stab at bringing Zwangzug in?
Liberal Liberals CTE'd? Damn, they were my closest ally in the region!
Not to mention a big solid block on the map. Looks like a flood of apocalyptic proportions is going to sweep over forest.
Communal ecotopia, Mount Seymour, and Canaltia
It's written in R. If you want, I can telegram you a link to the Drop Box folder where I've got the code and have been storing data sheets.
Regarding making an index of "Greenest" nations, I've put some thought into it. Using the actual scores seems like it would make a more meaningful index (at least to me). The difficulty with using raw scores is that not everything is calculated independently; some of these things relate to each other in sometimes unexpected ways (for example, did you know that culture is 1/6 of what determines your weather?), but the algorithms are hidden so it isn't clear which ones influence each other. They also aren't on the same scales, which means the numbers need some kind of correction factor to avoid unwanted weighting. Using relative ranks avoids scaling issues, but might exacerbate problems caused by some factors co-varying. It's not something I've had enough time to really look into, unfortunately.
Man, I wanted seacoast, but not at this expense.
Hello!
As an, "ambassador," from Right to Life, I'm tring to understand the strong dislike for the current resolution at vote, Any comments on it would be helpful.
Well the resolution is essentially a ban on a women's right to an abortion. Based on the political atmosphere of the region, which is liberal and left-leaning, a conservative idealistic resolution would be highly opposed.
Personally I feel as though it's a fairly innocuous resolution although as the initial debate on the forum discusses it's fairly well covered by other WA resolutions, and if it means anything it would be regulating a vanishingly unlikely situation, depending on when a nation interprets a fetus becoming a child. If it were up to my I'd either abstain or vote for (I'd note that I endorsed to come to vote). I am voting against because I have agreed to vote with a majority of Forest, and given it's very narrow regulatory situation voting against will certainly not keep me up at night.
However, I would note it's getting crushed in the WA, and I think that's because most consider it a way for Right to Life to chip away at abortion rights. I think now that this issue has been tied to right to life, it's unlikely to pass in the forseeable future. I'm not saying this is 'right' but just making a political observation. I agree with Montmorencia that Forest generally votes in a way that would be considered 'left leaning' in US politics, and it's not surprise they oppose a resolution viewed as conservative.
Montmorencia, Mount Seymour, and Canaltia
I've brought back one of my Girls with Guns puppets - Yuumura kirika - and taken another - Mireille bouquet - off vacation mode to prepare them for the Halloween Cataclysm. I intend them to be my two principle anti-zombie nations. Two questions.
1. I think someone said that the ability to research a cure, and the subsequent effectiveness of the cure missiles, depends on the nation's level of public health funding. Is that correct? If so, my aim is to build them up in this area in preparation.
2. Yuumura kirika will be an ongoing resident in the region, so will, in due course, be entitled to a place on the regional map. As the two Girls with Guns nations are inseparable, could they be together on the map, Bruination? Indeed, could the situation be treated as akin to the peaceful/friendly RL split of Czechoslovakia into Slovakia and the Czech Republic? Under this scenario Yuumura kirika would occupy land previously part of Mireille bouquet. Also, if it isn't too much trouble, I envision the smaller nation being landlocked (thus making it dependent on Mireille bouquet or access to world markets).
Sorry for 
Liberal Liberals CTE'ing. That was a first. I will try and not let that happen again.
Although I don't love dilation and extraction procedures (and I assume this is the procedure targeted), I see this as a foothold for the anti-choice movement. I cannot stand by and let you build a bridgehead into the right of a woman to choose.
Montmorencia and Canaltia
Hi, Mockingbird! I'm am pro-abortion in general but I'm no expert on the details.
One thing that jumped out at me is that the resolution doesn't take into account the gestational age of the fetus. Referring to "partial-birth abortion" brings to mind the idea of a woman who has gone through 9 normal months of pregnancy and changes her mind just as a healthy kid is coming out of her womb. But that might not be the case. The fetus could be extremely premature, for example, with the likelihood of a long, painful and expensive stint in a NICU followed by (if not the death of the baby) a host of potential major disabilities.
Or maybe it has been learned that the fetus has one of those conditions that will cause it to die a short period of time after birth, and the mother doesn't want herself or the baby to go through that ordeal.
Of course, if one believes that killing a fetus is murder, then abortion would be wrong even in that situation. But for people who are generally pro-choice, they might well think it was warranted.
Of interest to me is this clause: "Observing that most intelligent species, including mankind, are well-developed at the time of birth..." I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons, and I'm intrigued that, if this were to pass, it might pave the way for legislation to prohibit the killing of other intelligent species. I've read that pigs are pretty smart... Anyway, it surprises me that the clause is included there, though, because in my limited experience, those who are pro-life are usually also religious and believe that man was put on the Earth to have dominion over all other species and so forth. Was this maybe just an attempt to include those nations that have sentient robots and things like that?
Anyway, a quick glance at the always-infallible Wikipedia tells me that partial-birth abortions are general used in cases of miscarriages or for fetuses with "several congenital anomalies." So the legislation seems pretty unnecessary and, if it's intended to prevent laboring mothers from changing their minds about having their kids at the very last minute, is probably addressing a problem that doesn't exist - like if the US were to try to build a wall on the Canadian border.
*Please note that I also think a US-Mexico wall is also an incredibly stupid idea, but the idea of a US-Canada wall was too funny for me not to write it down. My own approach to illegal immigration would just be to legalize all immigration. Problem solved! No more illegal immigrants.
Didn't think I would get that many responses, thanks for the feed back as the author is a friend of mine I just want to help him. As for the RMB sorry for hijacking it, the Forest now returns back to regularly scheduled programming.
Oh wow. I would vote against this resolution from that assertion alone. It's at best ignorant and at worst disingenuous; I can't think of any animals that *don't* meet those criteria. Relative to other animals, humans are poorly developed at the time of birth, requiring several months of post-natal care while development continues. Human babies can't even sit up on their own for anywhere from four to nine months. Compare this to a wildebeest that can outrun a hyena within 24 hours of being born! Whales and dolphins are born fully mobile, capable of swimming at birth. If we go outside of mammals, we can find additional examples. Some megapode birds can fly soon after hatching. Snakes hatch (or are born in a few species) fully independent. Squid, which are pretty close to our equals in terms of intelligence, hatch fully developed, albeit tiny. So claiming that humans are well-developed at birth may be true from the resolution's self-serving definition, but from a scientific perspective it's questionable at best.
That being said, the real reason I would vote against this resolution is that I don't think it's an international issue. Whether or not my nation terminates newborns doesn't affect anyone else (other than potentially offending their sensibilities).
Communal ecotopia, Mozworld, Isbjorn Maerenne Bava Paerani, and Canaltia
I always thought it was just about a nation's size, but you could be right. I've got high health anyway so it's hard to tell with me. It'd be worth experimenting come Z-Day.
But yeah, building your health up in those nations can't hurt.
«12. . .300301302303304305306. . .2,6522,653»
Advertisement
