by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Forest Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .1,2851,2861,2871,2881,2891,2901,291. . .1,8341,835»

Looks like we're lacking a general consensus on the term general consensus...

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

Hey, democracies comes and go, good prose is forever.

Caracasus wrote:Looks like we're lacking a general consensus on the term general consensus...

It is quite a difficult conundrum!

Hey Canaltia, I heard you can suppress people now.

Ruinenlust, Lord Dominator, Turbeaux, Canaltia, and 2 othersCosona, and Catterland

Boar Stacks wrote:Hey Canaltia, I heard you can suppress people now.

Yep. Don't disrespect.

(It's fine I know him IRL I promise)

Article 6 – Embassies

6.1 No embassy requests with regions containing lessfewer than 6 WA nations or younger than 6 months will be accepted by Forest. Regions which do meet these requirements must submit a telegram describing their region and reasons for making the request to the appropriate members of Forest's government (hereby defined as the Forest Keeper and/or Minister of Foreign Affairs if appointed). If only an in-game request is made and no further information is provided in 24 hours, the requesting nation will be contacted by an appropriate member of Forest's government asking for information. After 5 days, or 4 from the time the telegram was sent, if there is no response and the proposal yet stands, an appropriate member of Forest's government will post on the requesting region's regional message board (this post can be made via puppet nation if desired). If after 7 days no contact has been made, then the request is to be assumed invalid (although new requests with the appropriate information from the same region will be considered.)

If a region meets the above requirements, an appropriate member of Forest's government will notify the residents of Forest, via the Regional Message Board or in a region-wide telegram, of the potential embassy as soon as is convenient. The region must then be sponsored, seconded, and thirded, by at least three current Forest residents (hereafter 'the sponsors'), all of whom must have resided in Forest consecutively for at least thirty days prior to sponsoring and at least one of whom must be a member of the World Assembly. At least one of the sponsors must post, via the Regional Message Board or in a telegram to the appropriate members of Forest's government, a statement vouching for the potential embassy, within 4 days from the time the residents of Forest were notified of it. At least one sponsor must also state their willingness to serve as an ambassador to the region in question should the embassy be constructed.

If the request meets all of the above requirements, the request will be voted on as described in Clause 6.5.

6.2 The Forest Keeper (possibly through the request of a Regional Officer) may decide to request embassies with other regions. If the region meets the 6 WA nation and older than 6 months requirements it will be voted on as described in Clause 6.5. Otherwise it will be voted on as described in Clause 6.6.in a manner similar to Clause 6.5 with one change; a three-quarters majority vote in favour will be needed to open the embassy.

6.3 Embassies may be voted on for closure at the discretion of the Forest Keeper. If the embassy has less than 6 WA nations it shall be voted on as described in Clause 6.5. Otherwise it will be voted on as described in Clause 6.6. in the manner described in Clause 6.5. Embassies closure may only be voted on once per electoralcalendar year per region, unless extreme circumstances change the nature of the region (e.g. invasion or other major regime change).

6.4 To avoid embassy request spamming, if a region has been rejected twice within a 12-month period, then they must wait until the next election cycle is completed, i.e., the following 1 October or 1 April, to lodge a third request. Thereafter, they can apply once each election yearcalendar year.

6.5 Embassy votes which fall under this clause will be voted on in the following fashion:

A description of the telegram received by the nation and/or assessment of the region by a member of Forest's government will be posted on the RMB.

A poll, with natives residents only eligible to vote will be posted. The poll will be posted as soon as convenient for the government, avoiding excessive delays. The poll is recommended to be open for 3 days, although it may be reduced to 2 if there is a backlog in polls. The poll will be entitled ‘Shall we (open/close) embassies with (the region in question)?’ and will provide a ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ option. The poll will be decided by a simplerequires a three-fifths majority vote in favour to pass. Puppeteering on a regional embassy poll is not permitted.

6.6 The voting process will be done in a manner similar to Clause 6.5 with one change; a 2/3’s vote will be needed to open/close the embassy.

Read dispatch

After trying it out on Discord, it seems like Greenness Factor can be used for any nations, even the ones outside of Forest.

So I am a little late on the development, but there seems to be an obvious code running in the background. I wonder if we can bring that back and do a Regional dispatch about the Greenness for the regions.

No way I am searching up Greenness of 648 nations by hand. :P

---

Also I was told that my nation was founded 3 years 14 days ago. Happy Pi Day!

Rejectionville

Mount Seymour wrote:
Article 6 – Embassies

6.1 No embassy requests with regions containing lessfewer than 6 WA nations or younger than 6 months will be accepted by Forest. Regions which do meet these requirements must submit a telegram describing their region and reasons for making the request to the appropriate members of Forest's government (hereby defined as the Forest Keeper and/or Minister of Foreign Affairs if appointed). If only an in-game request is made and no further information is provided in 24 hours, the requesting nation will be contacted by an appropriate member of Forest's government asking for information. After 5 days, or 4 from the time the telegram was sent, if there is no response and the proposal yet stands, an appropriate member of Forest's government will post on the requesting region's regional message board (this post can be made via puppet nation if desired). If after 7 days no contact has been made, then the request is to be assumed invalid (although new requests with the appropriate information from the same region will be considered.)

If a region meets the above requirements, an appropriate member of Forest's government will notify the residents of Forest, via the Regional Message Board or in a region-wide telegram, of the potential embassy as soon as is convenient. The region must then be sponsored, seconded, and thirded, by at least three current Forest residents (hereafter 'the sponsors'), all of whom must have resided in Forest consecutively for at least thirty days prior to sponsoring and at least one of whom must be a member of the World Assembly. At least one of the sponsors must post, via the Regional Message Board or in a telegram to the appropriate members of Forest's government, a statement vouching for the potential embassy, within 4 days from the time the residents of Forest were notified of it. At least one sponsor must also state their willingness to serve as an ambassador to the region in question should the embassy be constructed.

If the request meets all of the above requirements, the request will be voted on as described in Clause 6.5.

6.2 The Forest Keeper (possibly through the request of a Regional Officer) may decide to request embassies with other regions. If the region meets the 6 WA nation and older than 6 months requirements it will be voted on as described in Clause 6.5. Otherwise it will be voted on as described in Clause 6.6.in a manner similar to Clause 6.5 with one change; a three-quarters majority vote in favour will be needed to open the embassy.

6.3 Embassies may be voted on for closure at the discretion of the Forest Keeper. If the embassy has less than 6 WA nations it shall be voted on as described in Clause 6.5. Otherwise it will be voted on as described in Clause 6.6. in the manner described in Clause 6.5. Embassies closure may only be voted on once per electoralcalendar year per region, unless extreme circumstances change the nature of the region (e.g. invasion or other major regime change).

6.4 To avoid embassy request spamming, if a region has been rejected twice within a 12-month period, then they must wait until the next election cycle is completed, i.e., the following 1 October or 1 April, to lodge a third request. Thereafter, they can apply once each election yearcalendar year.

6.5 Embassy votes which fall under this clause will be voted on in the following fashion:

A description of the telegram received by the nation and/or assessment of the region by a member of Forest's government will be posted on the RMB.

A poll, with natives residents only eligible to vote will be posted. The poll will be posted as soon as convenient for the government, avoiding excessive delays. The poll is recommended to be open for 3 days, although it may be reduced to 2 if there is a backlog in polls. The poll will be entitled ‘Shall we (open/close) embassies with (the region in question)?’ and will provide a ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ option. The poll will be decided by a simplerequires a three-fifths majority vote in favour to pass. Puppeteering on a regional embassy poll is not permitted.

6.6 The voting process will be done in a manner similar to Clause 6.5 with one change; a 2/3’s vote will be needed to open/close the embassy.

Read dispatch

I actually really like this one, it's a green light from me. Also, nice to see exactly how and where it deviates from the existing clause. Good formatting there.

Caracasus wrote:Looks like we're lacking a general consensus on the term general consensus...

Generally, I agree that we've yet to come to a general consensus on the term "general consensus", but I broadly think we're coming to a broad consensus on the unnecessity of reducing linguistic inefficiencies.

The New Bluestocking Homeland wrote:Generally, I agree that we've yet to come to a general consensus on the term "general consensus", but I broadly think we're coming to a broad consensus on the unnecessity of reducing linguistic inefficiencies.

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

I'm gonna start saying "broad-but-not-in-the-sense-formerly-used-to-refer-to-women consensus" :p

EDIT: I'd say "wide consensus", but that's not the phrase I know

On a different point, could someone explain the battle over St Abbaddon? I noticed the declaration of war from the New Pacific Order yesterday, but I am still confused on how these raiding wars work.

Also, I assume, Forest takes a neutral stance on this conflict, correct?

Helo Forest! I'm just peeping in from Europe to say hi and ask y'all to come discuss with us. This is not official or anything but who cares?

Valentine Z wrote:After trying it out on Discord, it seems like Greenness Factor can be used for any nations, even the ones outside of Forest.

So I am a little late on the development, but there seems to be an obvious code running in the background. I wonder if we can bring that back and do a Regional dispatch about the Greenness for the regions.

No way I am searching up Greenness of 648 nations by hand. :P

---

Also I was told that my nation was founded 3 years 14 days ago. Happy Pi Day!

The code for the bot is the same as the one that's in the script which is used to calculate the greenness for the dispatch. It's just formatted for single uses for the bot, and a whole region for the dispatch.

Serbia-macedonia wrote:Helo Forest! I'm just peeping in from Europe to say hi and ask y'all to come discuss with us. This is not official or anything but who cares?

Meaning only do it if you want to.

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

Rivienland wrote:On a different point, could someone explain the battle over St Abbaddon? I noticed the declaration of war from the New Pacific Order yesterday, but I am still confused on how these raiding wars work.

Also, I assume, Forest takes a neutral stance on this conflict, correct?

Raiding and Defending is a metagame "invented" long ago where people use the World Assembly and endorsements and the WAD (WA Delegate) to take over a region. Forest has had this happen to it a few times, though only to unseat the Delegate and end his unbroken streak of how many days he's been in it. Raiders do this metagame to conquer regions (or mess them up) while defenders do the opposite, they hunt raiders and mess up their raids, and restore afflicted regions.

The battle in St. Abbaddon yesterday was where all of raiderdom -- some 167 people, total -- attempted to pile in the region following a failed trigger at minor due to variance (i.e. the amount of time it takes for regions to update). In response the New Pacific Order called upon all of her members, and 80+ Pacificans former and current answered, along with the treatied Feeders (TSP, TEP, and TWP) and other offsite resources. TNP aided the raiders, and they alone tipped the balance as the NPO had 150 people on Kitsco, the native delegate, at the height of the pile. Kitsco woke up before the region updated and kicked out the raiders.

In total, some 300 players piled into the region yesterday. It is truly an historical event, in terms of piling and sheer number.

Forest is neutral and does not endorse R/D as a region. However, her members are free to support whichever side (raider, defender) they want without reprimand.

The New Pacific Order, before you ask, is neither raider nor defender, but uses the two sides as tools for its own political goals.

As for the why the battle was fought, it is just politics. The raiders supported a native banned from the region by his regionmates and the natives were aided by the NPO because they are the Order's protectorate. How that came to be dates a year and a half ago, when the raider-backed guy was kicked out in a similarly massed pile, this time defenders vs. raiders.

Darths and Droids wrote:

Raiding and Defending is a metagame "invented" long ago where people use the World Assembly and endorsements and the WAD (WA Delegate) to take over a region. Forest has had this happen to it a few times, though only to unseat the Delegate and end his unbroken streak of how many days he's been in it. Raiders do this metagame to conquer regions (or mess them up) while defenders do the opposite, they hunt raiders and mess up their raids, and restore afflicted regions.

The battle in St. Abbaddon yesterday was where all of raiderdom -- some 167 people, total -- attempted to pile in the region following a failed trigger at minor due to variance (i.e. the amount of time it takes for regions to update). In response the New Pacific Order called upon all of her members, and 80+ Pacificans former and current answered, along with the treatied Feeders (TSP, TEP, and TWP) and other offsite resources. TNP aided the raiders, and they alone tipped the balance as the NPO had 150 people on Kitsco, the native delegate, at the height of the pile. Kitsco woke up before the region updated and kicked out the raiders.

In total, some 300 players piled into the region yesterday. It is truly an historical event, in terms of piling and sheer number.

Forest is neutral and does not endorse R/D as a region. However, her members are free to support whichever side (raider, defender) they want without reprimand.

The New Pacific Order, before you ask, is neither raider nor defender, but uses the two sides as tools for its own political goals.

As for the why the battle was fought, it is just politics. The raiders supported a native banned from the region by his regionmates and the natives were aided by the NPO because they are the Order's protectorate. How that came to be dates a year and a half ago, when the raider-backed guy was kicked out in a similarly massed pile, this time defenders vs. raiders.

Fascinating! Thank you for the well articulated summary, especially concerning the politics revolving around the NPO. Honestly, the history and events happening in Forest are a lot for me to, process so trying to understand the Pacific is mind-boggling!

Rivienland wrote:Fascinating! Thank you for the well articulated summary, especially concerning the politics revolving around the NPO. Honestly, the history and events happening in Forest are a lot for me to, process so trying to understand the Pacific is mind-boggling!

As the saying goes, you gotta experience it to understand it, and the NPO is old, 15 years old.

Darths and Droids wrote:and the NPO is old, 15 years old.

It's crazy to think how old NS is becoming. The game still feels so young, but then you look at some nations that have been around since time immemorial!

Mount Seymour wrote:
Article 6 – Embassies

6.1 No embassy requests with regions containing lessfewer than 6 WA nations or younger than 6 months will be accepted by Forest. Regions which do meet these requirements must submit a telegram describing their region and reasons for making the request to the appropriate members of Forest's government (hereby defined as the Forest Keeper and/or Minister of Foreign Affairs if appointed). If only an in-game request is made and no further information is provided in 24 hours, the requesting nation will be contacted by an appropriate member of Forest's government asking for information. After 5 days, or 4 from the time the telegram was sent, if there is no response and the proposal yet stands, an appropriate member of Forest's government will post on the requesting region's regional message board (this post can be made via puppet nation if desired). If after 7 days no contact has been made, then the request is to be assumed invalid (although new requests with the appropriate information from the same region will be considered.)

If a region meets the above requirements, an appropriate member of Forest's government will notify the residents of Forest, via the Regional Message Board or in a region-wide telegram, of the potential embassy as soon as is convenient. The region must then be sponsored, seconded, and thirded, by at least three current Forest residents (hereafter 'the sponsors'), all of whom must have resided in Forest consecutively for at least thirty days prior to sponsoring and at least one of whom must be a member of the World Assembly. At least one of the sponsors must post, via the Regional Message Board or in a telegram to the appropriate members of Forest's government, a statement vouching for the potential embassy, within 4 days from the time the residents of Forest were notified of it. At least one sponsor must also state their willingness to serve as an ambassador to the region in question should the embassy be constructed.

If the request meets all of the above requirements, the request will be voted on as described in Clause 6.5.

6.2 The Forest Keeper (possibly through the request of a Regional Officer) may decide to request embassies with other regions. If the region meets the 6 WA nation and older than 6 months requirements it will be voted on as described in Clause 6.5. Otherwise it will be voted on as described in Clause 6.6.in a manner similar to Clause 6.5 with one change; a three-quarters majority vote in favour will be needed to open the embassy.

6.3 Embassies may be voted on for closure at the discretion of the Forest Keeper. If the embassy has less than 6 WA nations it shall be voted on as described in Clause 6.5. Otherwise it will be voted on as described in Clause 6.6. in the manner described in Clause 6.5. Embassies closure may only be voted on once per electoralcalendar year per region, unless extreme circumstances change the nature of the region (e.g. invasion or other major regime change).

6.4 To avoid embassy request spamming, if a region has been rejected twice within a 12-month period, then they must wait until the next election cycle is completed, i.e., the following 1 October or 1 April, to lodge a third request. Thereafter, they can apply once each election yearcalendar year.

6.5 Embassy votes which fall under this clause will be voted on in the following fashion:

A description of the telegram received by the nation and/or assessment of the region by a member of Forest's government will be posted on the RMB.

A poll, with natives residents only eligible to vote will be posted. The poll will be posted as soon as convenient for the government, avoiding excessive delays. The poll is recommended to be open for 3 days, although it may be reduced to 2 if there is a backlog in polls. The poll will be entitled ‘Shall we (open/close) embassies with (the region in question)?’ and will provide a ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ option. The poll will be decided by a simplerequires a three-fifths majority vote in favour to pass. Puppeteering on a regional embassy poll is not permitted.

6.6 The voting process will be done in a manner similar to Clause 6.5 with one change; a 2/3’s vote will be needed to open/close the embassy.

Read dispatch

As I stated in the forum, I support this! Consider this RMB post an indication that my support is official!

*breaks the silence*

Silence-Be-Gone Inc.™ is the only surviving silence-breaking company in The South Pacific. It gained a monopoly by performing corporate raids on the other two silence-breaking companies.
It has recently begun to expand its operations into the embassy regions of The South Pacific. Recently, it has been growing quickly in Conch Kingdom.

Read dispatch

We have returned.

Techolandia wrote:*breaks the silence*
Silence-Be-Gone Inc.™ is the only surviving silence-breaking company in The South Pacific. It gained a monopoly by performing corporate raids on the other two silence-breaking companies.
It has recently begun to expand its operations into the embassy regions of The South Pacific. Recently, it has been growing quickly in Conch Kingdom.

Read dispatch

We have returned.

Oh thank goodness. I just couldn't stand the silence any longer!

Serbia-macedonia wrote:Helo Forest! I'm just peeping in from Europe to say hi and ask y'all to come discuss with us. This is not official or anything but who cares?

I'd love to, but when I go to your RMB I cant send any messages. Maybe the message perms only allow residents to post?

Canaltia wrote:Oh thank goodness. I just couldn't stand the silence any longer!

You are welcome. Do you want to join the company in order to help prevent other nations from having to undergo that unbearable experience?

«12. . .1,2851,2861,2871,2881,2891,2901,291. . .1,8341,835»

Advertisement