Forest

One hundred percent agreed. We need to reconsider how we handle embassies, because for a region that is all about sustainability, our current policy is not sustainable at all.

As far as changes to the embassy requirements go, perhaps:

- a "fast-track" to embassies for regions which have an eco-friendly tag and a precommitted ambassador, are over a year old, and/or have a WA population over 50 (or similar requirements), which would go to voting just like our current embassies;
- and a "slow-track" for regions which do not meet those extra criteria, which would have to be approved by the Foreign Minister/FK, would have a probation period with a reconfirmation (which I do support for all embassies regardless of other changes), would require a 2/3 majority in a poll, would require a Forestian to lodge a formal e statement in support of and explaining that support of embassies with them, etc.

I imagine this as being a sort of middle ground between our current criteria, raising our current criteria on who can become an embassy at all, and adding further steps to the process.

I do also think we should consider an artificial cap on the number of embassies we'll allow ourselves, even if it's just a conceptual and not a legal one.

While I'm not a WA member and cannot vote, I would like to express my support for both an influence/WA requirement on embassy polls and additional criteria.

EDIT: Re: Mt. Seymour:

I hadn't considered the idea of having two tracks for embassies. Actually, maybe three embassies, each appropriately color-coded by speed and societal convention. We could create a sort-of "middle tier" to regions that are not environmentally-friendly, but yet are significant or special in some other way, e.g. The North Pacific, Europe, the the_bar_on_the_corner_of_every_region, etc... They're not explicitly environmental, but they're certainly worth a different kind of consideration than broadly-unacceptable but technically eligible regions.

I. "Green Light Tier": for environmentally-friendly regions that meet all requirements. Standard approval process.

II. "Yellow Light Tier": for regions that, while not explicitly eco-friendly, are nevertheless worthy of special, case-by-case attention and interest. These can include massive feeder regions, historically-significant regions, or sinker regions, etc. This track might have as a requirement a pre-committed ambassador, reflecting that while we aren't natural roommates, like with Conifer, the special level of attention and prestige sort of overrides the otherwise-arbitrary connection.

III. "Red Light Tier": for regions that, despite technically meeting the objective criteria, otherwise do not present any natural or special case reason for consideration. These would subject to not only a pre-committed ambassador, but also a 2/3rd majority and perhaps special advocacy from someone or something to that effect. Certainly not impossible if it's "meant to be," but not something a half-hearted region trying to rack up a huge list of embassy regions can realistically expect to just fall into by technicality, either.