by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Forest Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .1,2841,2851,2861,2871,2881,2891,290. . .1,8411,842»

Rejectionville

Ruinenlust wrote:I am extremely pleased to announce that:

Rejectionville is our ambassador to the Bar on the corner of every region

I'll drink to that. Cheers!

Cracks the seal on a bottle of Rumplmintz, takes a swig and passes it around

Sacara, Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, Palos Heights, and 5 othersTurbeaux, Canaltia, Seagull, Cosona, and The southern cascadian states

Uan aa boa wrote:Government post
This seems an appropriate moment to announce the appointment of Canaltia as Voice of the Forest. This new role involves preparing regional updates and working with the ambassadors to make sure they get to the intended audience.

I'd also like to appoint Blon Gre as Statistics Officer, responsible for presenting data on the environmental achievements of Forest nations.

I'll TG both of you to start things moving, but it might well not happen this evening.

Errinundera, please could you make both appointments, giving each post communications authority. I believe this takes us to the maximum number of regional officers and therefore completes the government team for this term.

Thanks and apologies to the other people who applied for these posts. It wasn't an easy decision and I could have filled them several times over.

Done and done.

Caracasus wrote:My main suggestion would be to make it easier to close an embassy. Something along the lines of should 6% of Forest's population call for an embassy to be closed, it must be voted on.

To me, 6% of Forest seems like too little So I would say 20%/15%

To explain my position for it After spending ten minutes each day painfully reading Every message you can see somewhat of a consensus. Most of us don't like the current situation but we want for Forest to be inclusive and not limit the people who vote for an embassy. I am all for the one-month requirement. My official position is Abstain since I've been here for less than a month (Only two days now!) And I feel that nations who come here should have a glimpse of forest's community and their respective opinions so we can have informed voters.

Remember - Forest is a lot bigger than just the folks on these boards. 20% of Forest would be 130 people, and that would just be to start the process! There have only been 32 votes cast in the entire poll on this subject.

Even 6% would be 39 people - more than have participated in this poll in any capacity thus far, and if I recall correctly, more than voted in the Sonindia embassy poll for both sides combined (I think it was 21:14, 35 votes)

(Numbers as of this writing)

I was wondering why have a vote if it would then be by your logic passed unanimously. I do agree with your point though this current post was only open to WA Members

Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, Canaltia, Cosona, and 1 otherSyllabun

When talking about percentages of the region I'll just point out that in about a week's time all the Z-Day puppets that various people brought in will likely CTE, so the region's population will probably be cut in half.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Re: using Influence, I'd also note that on the day I arrived in Forest, I had the highest Influence of any nation because it was Influence from 10,000 Islands, who are larger and quicker to endorse than here. My Influence from there then decayed faster than my Influence here grew, and I was at low Influence here for some time before reestablishing my position here.

Look at this graph though, and you'll see that while I crashed from 85000 down to 6000 and have since climbed back to 49000, I've never been below 2000, which basically means I've met the discussed Influence requirement from day 1 of joining this region.

I think that in mind, you may want to find some way of making it so that the Influence chart also has to have an upward gradient at the time someone is declared a citizen, as otherwise someone could come here from a few weeks in, say, the North Pacific, and then come here and be immediately and indefinitely over 2000 influence.

Palos Heights wrote:Like others have pointed out, having a high number means f-all if they come from a large feeder region and carry that over. In that case, then you have a vote coming from someone who knows NOTHING about the region...

This is false. Note that the poll requires 2000 points of regional influence, so influence from another region would not count at all.

Uan aa boa wrote:In the absence of consensus, the default position appears to be no change.

This would unquestionably the worst outcome of this debate. We need to come to some sort of change.

Mozworld wrote:How about some sort of sponsorship program. Aswell as needing the requisite number of WA nations and being older than 6 months, also requiring sponsorship by a resident (or a certain number of residents) of Forest whose residency (rather than influence) is of a certain level (TBD) who can vouch for them and potentially serve as ambassador to that region. Before moving to the usual voting procedure.

I very much like this idea. It increases Forestian individual involvement in embassies (potentially helping the ambassador system) and adds a custom residency requirement that's not too painful to check while still being meaningful. I also think it goes very well with our discussion-focused culture.

Ruinenlust wrote:We can also include changes in the outcome necessary for an embassy.

We could extend the 2/3rds majority that is required for closing embassies to opening them as well, which would keep the process entirely as open and fair as it is now, but would ensure that when we do form an embassy, it only happens when the community is considerably united behind the outcome. That way, we can force there to be a bit more rigor in the system without actually disenfranchising anyone who would like to contribute to the decision-making process.

If we have some kind of runoff poll or something, perhaps raising the majority from 50% +1 to a 2/3rd majority could be included, provided people other than me think that's an option worth weighing.

**And, if we want to keep opening an embassy at 50% +1, then we might consider lowering the threshold to close an embassy down to 50% +1 as well, at least for regions that have fallen below the requirements. One of my concerns (thinking of the policy in terms of accumulated months and years) is that if it's significantly easier to form embassies than to reevaluate and prune embassies that may no longer be mutually beneficial, then we seem destined to eventually have an entire segment of embassies on the bottom of the list that are atrophied and that, but for the reversal of time, would never be voted on in the first place.

I would strongly support upping the opening requirement to 2/3. A lot of our more problematic embassy choices have come out of times when they passed by less than 2/3. If we want to prevent opening lots of frivolous embassies, raising the requirement for support is quite effective.

I'm neutral on lowering the closing requirement (in general, I think lowering the requirement isn't a good thing as it leads to more controversial actions taken), but in this case I'm willing to go along with it.

Suppose we simply stayed quiet a bit and let everyone settle in? I mean we've gotten a lot of attention recently with Nday and Zday, whose to say if we don't keep that up things won't return to normal as people get used to the culture.

Lord Dominator, Aeterno Tranquillitas, Turbeaux, Canaltia, and 4 othersSeagull, Cosona, Altmer dominion, and Syllabun

Areulder wrote:Suppose we simply stayed quiet a bit and let everyone settle in? I mean we've gotten a lot of attention recently with Nday and Zday, whose to say if we don't keep that up things won't return to normal as people get used to the culture.

Yeah. As a person who was someone who came for an event, and stayed for the community, I think it might be the best course of action to put in place a sponsorship program or a residency requirement and then return the region to normal. I mean, I still feel intimidated when everyone is going at it over a constitutional change.

Lord Dominator, Aeterno Tranquillitas, Turbeaux, Seagull, and 4 othersCosona, Altmer dominion, Syllabun, and Rivienland

Mount Seymour wrote:This would unquestionably the worst outcome of this debate. We need to come to some sort of change.

You understand how the constitution works. Either I put a change forward or it needs the public support of approximately 25 WA members in order to come to vote (a big ask). We have a large number of varied suggestions, most if not all of which are strongly opposed by multiple people. We also have a clear feeling that it would be a bad thing for me to use my position to trample over the objections of others. I started this process to see if there was an achievable consensus. It appears there is not.

So how about this? If anyone drafts a proposed constitional change I'll put it to an informal vote open to everyone. If it gets a 2/3 majority in that vote then I'll formally propose it for ratification by WA members as per the full process for amending the constitution.

I'll also gladly advise anyone working on a draft on how to word their ammendment so that it achieves what they want it to achieve, on the proviso that the drafting happens by telegram or on the forum rather than filling up the RMB.

I think at this point if any of these ideas is going anywhere we need to see the detail rather than just dozens of outline suggestions.

Chan Island wrote:Maybe Caracasus is referring to the esteemed Chan Island military hero, a certain General Jack of Consensus. :P

Hm, I am surprised that it is not admiral Jack of Consensus! Is there a story there?

Lord Dominator, Canaltia, Cosona, and Catterland

Uan aa boa wrote:You understand how the constitution works. Either I put a change forward or it needs the public support of approximately 25 WA members in order to come to vote (a big ask). We have a large number of varied suggestions, most if not all of which are strongly opposed by multiple people. We also have a clear feeling that it would be a bad thing for me to use my position to trample over the objections of others. I started this process to see if there was an achievable consensus. It appears there is not.

So how about this? If anyone drafts a proposed constitional change I'll put it to an informal vote open to everyone. If it gets a 2/3 majority in that vote then I'll formally propose it for ratification by WA members as per the full process for amending the constitution.

I'll also gladly advise anyone working on a draft on how to word their ammendment so that it achieves what they want it to achieve, on the proviso that the drafting happens by telegram or on the forum rather than filling up the RMB.

I think at this point if any of these ideas is going anywhere we need to see the detail rather than just dozens of outline suggestions.

Well, here you go:

https://forest.freeflarum.com/d/120-proposal-constitutional-change-on-embassies

I've proposed a set of changes largely based on Mozworld and Ruinenlust's most recent suggestions.

I still don't understand why people feel a need to change the Constitution re: embassies.

Lord Dominator, Palos Heights, Turbeaux, Canaltia, and 2 othersCosona, and Catterland

Turbeaux wrote:Hm, I am surprised that it is not admiral Jack of Consensus! Is there a story there?

General Consensus died during his famous last stand on unpopularity hill. His men wanted to retreat but he convinced them not to.

Ransium wrote:General Consensus died during his famous last stand on unpopularity hill. His men wanted to retreat but he convinced them not to.

That makes sense and explains Chan Island's current pirate navy force projection strategy.

On embassies,

I support the general consensus for no change in the voter requirements and keeping it easy for people to engage in the democratic process. Barely over 100 people being able to participate is still too few. I could be open to Palos' idea of a minimum month residency, but as that isn't popular, I don't feel strongly enough to push against the tide.

I agree with ideas to make it easier to close embassies, both Caracasus' idea to make it easier to trigger a vote to close an embassy that no longer works for us and also the idea to reduce the vote requirement for closure from 2/3 to 50%+1.

I also agree with Mozworld's idea of -- if not it making it a mandatory requirement, at least giving preference to regions with -- sponsorship from a settled nation from within Forest, who can vouch for them and who may like to serve as ambassador to them. Having a pre-committed ambassador of our own, who knows the region, would also help respond to Palos' concerns about the amount of reciprocal commitment Forest puts into embassy relationships.

The New Bluestocking Homeland wrote:On embassies,

I support the general consensus for no change in the voter requirements and keeping it easy for people to engage in the democratic process. Barely over 100 people being able to participate is still too few. I could be open to Palos' idea of a minimum month residency, but as that isn't popular, I don't feel strongly enough to push against the tide.

I agree with ideas to make it easier to close embassies, both Caracasus' idea to make it easier to trigger a vote to close an embassy that no longer works for us and also the idea to reduce the vote requirement for closure from 2/3 to 50%+1.

I also agree with Mozworld's idea of -- if not it making it a mandatory requirement, at least giving preference to regions with -- sponsorship from a settled nation from within Forest, who can vouch for them and who may like to serve as ambassador to them. Having a pre-committed ambassador of our own, who knows the region, would also help respond to Palos' concerns about the amount of reciprocal commitment Forest puts into embassy relationships.

Oh drat, another general consensuser! 🤦‍♂️

Regarding embassies, I highly recommend that y'all take a look at Mount Seymour's proposal here: https://forest.freeflarum.com/d/120-proposal-constitutional-change-on-embassies

BTW, you should put that in a dispatch MS! I feel awkward encouraging people to go off-site for things.

Post self-deleted by Turbeaux.

Okay, looks like we've got a FAR MORE important topic on hand now...

So, on the so-called redundancy of "general consensus". :)

I know a lot of grammarists insist that this redundancy should be dropped, but I disagree.

Firstly, the word "general" can indicate the group in which consensus has taken place. As in the general consensus could be a consensus amongst the broadest group of people, whereas an editorial consensus could be consensus between editors, and a right-wing consensus could be consensus between right-wingers.

Secondly, even when used redundantly it represents an aesthetically appealing turn of phrase. Redundancy can add emphasis and beauty to the language. For example, "the very best for you, sir" has a greater emphasis and beauty than "the best for you, sir", even though the word "very" is redundant. Redundancy shouldn't be purged for the sake of efficiency - that way lies Newspeak! Instead, the poetry of English should be considered at all times, even in prose or informal speech. Speak and write beautifully, because beauty is truth!

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Okay, looks like we've got a FAR MORE important topic on hand now...

So, on the so-called redundancy of "general consensus". :)

I know a lot of grammarists insist that this redundancy should be dropped, but I disagree.

Firstly, the word "general" can indicate the group in which consensus has taken place. As in the general consensus could be a consensus amongst the broadest group of people, whereas an editorial consensus could be consensus between editors, and a right-wing consensus could be consensus between right-wingers.

Secondly, even when used redundantly it represents an aesthetically appealing turn of phrase. Redundancy can add emphasis and beauty to the language. For example, "the very best for you, sir" has a greater emphasis and beauty than "the best for you, sir", even though the word "very" is redundant. Redundancy shouldn't be purged for the sake of efficiency - that way lies Newspeak! Instead, the poetry of English should be considered at all times, even in prose or informal speech. Speak and write beautifully, because beauty is truth!

^ All this.

Can we not purge the poetry out of language, please? Language is one of the things where rich or poor, no-one has to economise (unless we're talking absolute purple prose over the colour of a teabag, in which case... there is such a thing as excess).

But let's not start examining every phrase for redundancy, and constantly trying to make language into a leaner, meaner, rougher, tougher son-of-a-b!tch, with accuracy so painfully precise that there's no magic left at all.

And I actually disagree with the broad consensus of grammarists (:p). I don't find "general consensus" redundant. I personally find "there is a general consensus" more accurate than "there is consensus".

>"There is consensus" suggests, to me, that pretty much everyone agrees and there are no real opposing opinions.
>"There is general consensus" suggests that most people agree but some people think otherwise
>"There is broad consensus" suggests that the opinion is widely held, but a fairly vocal minority think otherwise
>"There is growing consensus" suggests an idea is fairly new but popular and gaining rapid support (and possibly well evidenced)

The New Bluestocking Homeland wrote:On embassies,

I support the general consensus for no change in the voter requirements and keeping it easy for people to engage in the democratic process. Barely over 100 people being able to participate is still too few. I could be open to Palos' idea of a minimum month residency, but as that isn't popular, I don't feel strongly enough to push against the tide.

I agree with ideas to make it easier to close embassies, both Caracasus' idea to make it easier to trigger a vote to close an embassy that no longer works for us and also the idea to reduce the vote requirement for closure from 2/3 to 50%+1.

I also agree with Mozworld's idea of -- if not it making it a mandatory requirement, at least giving preference to regions with -- sponsorship from a settled nation from within Forest, who can vouch for them and who may like to serve as ambassador to them. Having a pre-committed ambassador of our own, who knows the region, would also help respond to Palos' concerns about the amount of reciprocal commitment Forest puts into embassy relationships.

I honestly don't want us to curtail who can vote. I have a compromise, but yeah, I don't want to curtail that at all.

The New Bluestocking Homeland wrote:
>"There is broad consensus" suggests that the opinion is widely held, but a fairly vocal minority think otherwise

Cmon Joy, it's 2018. We don't call women "broads" anymore!

Palos Heights wrote:I honestly don't want us to curtail who can vote. I have a compromise, but yeah, I don't want to curtail that at all.

Not curtailing who can vote works for me, too.

It's probably better that we look at how we form embassies, making it easier to close embassies that aren't working for us and examine how we can nurture more positive relationships with the embassies we have.

Palos Heights wrote:Cmon Joy, it's 2018. We don't call women "broads" anymore!

*badum-dum-tss*

:p

Turbeaux wrote:Oh drat, another general consensuser! 🤦‍♂️

Regarding embassies, I highly recommend that y'all take a look at Mount Seymour's proposal here: https://forest.freeflarum.com/d/120-proposal-constitutional-change-on-embassies

BTW, you should put that in a dispatch MS! I feel awkward encouraging people to go off-site for things.

Good point, I will do that.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Okay, looks like we've got a FAR MORE important topic on hand now...

So, on the so-called redundancy of "general consensus". :)[]

Like, oh my god, you're such an issues editor.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:...For example, "the very best for you, sir" has a greater emphasis and beauty than "the best for you, sir", even though the word "very" is redundant. Redundancy shouldn't be purged for the sake of efficiency - that way lies Newspeak! Instead, the poetry of English should be considered at all times, even in prose or informal speech. Speak and write beautifully, because beauty is truth!

Personally, I don't see the same sort of redundancy in that example. I suppose that if I were to coldly deconstruct it, you have a point. Let's go further deeper with it then. I do not wish to pervert the English language into something ugly. Gorgeous inefficiency is beautiful!

«12. . .1,2841,2851,2861,2871,2881,2891,290. . .1,8411,842»

Advertisement