ForestBoard

So I'm now in the world's top 10 for averageness and the 9th most average nation in Forest. This puzzles me. I mean, the idea of a metric for averageness is kind of challenging in itself, since the nation that scores highest is, at least in that respect, very much not average. Setting that aside, however, we have mandatory veganism, a state-planned socialist economy, a total ban on cars and aircraft, parliamentarians selected by drawing lots, a ban on getting married, legal cannabis, no legal gambling, citizenship for artificial intelligences and euthanasia. None of this is RP stuff, that's all issue answers. How is that "average"?

Canaltia wrote:

I'm just imagining a guy with a push mower plotting to take over an entire block of lawns one row at a time. I'd say it's a plot worthy of Doofenshmirtz.

I didn't mean push mowers.
"the PUSHMOWER!…inator—Wow, the name sounded better on paper, since it—" *cue Perry smacking Doof, along with that classic music chord*

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

Broadly, I'd note that Averageness is not based much on the specific decisions you make, but more on a broad picture assessment. There's a good argument for quirky policies feeding into lowering this stat though - I'll propose that the next time the tech team review the stat inputs.

My last post was largely in jest. While I appreciate you can't confirm or deny, it seems a pretty safe bet that the averageness stat is based mainly on the three freedoms that also determine your nation classification. After all, the most average nations are invariably Inoffensive Centrist Democracies, which is what Uan aa Boa also became at the same time it entered the top 10% most average.

If I do have a serious gripe it's with the way that I can be in the middle category for economic freedom when the rankings tell me I'm in the 83rd centile from the top. While again you won't be able to comment directly, I've heard that the socialism policy causes economic freedom to display at 100 points less than its effective value. That suggestion is certainly compatible with my recent change from Democratic Socialist to Inoffensive Centrist Democracy with a shift from -68 to -64. It seems to me, however, that nations with the socialism policy by definition don't have average levels of economic freedom, and I wonder if it would be possible to get to -33 and become a Free Market Paradise without having a free market. Players with these issue choices would also surely prefer to be in a socialist category.

While I'm at it, the Inoffensive Centrist Democracy description says that citizens take part in free and open elections while it's perfectly possible to get into this category with the sortition or autocracy policies in place.

This mass telegram about the SC proposal up for vote is very cringey. Vote against or my charity work is a waste of time. Riiight, but maybe you should have put the money that you spent on stamps toward donations for said charities. Bah humbug!

Turbeaux wrote:

This mass telegram about the SC proposal up for vote is very cringey. Vote against or my charity work is a waste of time. Riiight, but maybe you should have put the money that you spent on stamps toward donations for said charities. Bah humbug!

Agreed. A pity too, because he had a perfectly valid argument but then made it look stupid by putting a bunch of real life whining on the end. Keep the game about the game.

Historical artifacts aside, it is redundant because the newer Condemnation goes into further and more expansive detail, minus the garish WFEs. So my vote FOR the Repeal is unchanged.

My thanks to Rivienland and Turbeaux for sending me the TG. I don't know what the sender was going for with all the IRL stuff, but they had some decent points. I'm sticking with my FOR, but the TG could be a starting point for some interesting debate about history vs. progress for the sake of progress in NS.

That said, I have to go to work on the weekend, and I wrote a math test today, so I have more important things to do than NS. So can someone please commend me to make my time worth it?
(Just realized how pretentious that sounds after reading it back...)

Turbeaux wrote:

This mass telegram about the SC proposal up for vote is very cringey. Vote against or my charity work is a waste of time. Riiight, but maybe you should have put the money that you spent on stamps toward donations for said charities. Bah humbug!

Never mind "cringey". I found it unnecessarily personal about the proposal's author: "they're doing this because they're bored, while I have good work to do".

There's no need for that!

Yesterday, I'd switched my early "for" vote to "against", in the interest of preserving NS history (which I felt a good argument), but -- having just opened the TG -- I'm tempted to switch it back. Because I think such obviously personal politics have no business in the game.

Sacara wrote:

Dang, I didn't realize Forest was full of grinches!

I really liked the personal touch the author added. Too many times the WA has gotten away from actual humanity and debates and more towards insulting others behind a computer screen. It reminded me that this is just a game, and I switched my vote even.

What has anyone here said that's "grinchey"? We have merely questioned the method used to campaign -- myself for using overly personal tactics. Other people for other reasons.

And, you didn't find it slightly "grinchey" that the author of the TG -- rather than stick to making fact-based arguments about the history of SC1 -- instead resorted to cheap jabs at the author of the resolution: insinuations that while they (the TG author) were a good person, who filled their days with charity work and (presumably) singing Hark the Herald Angel with family, the author was so bored that they had "forced" the TG author to spend money on a campaign against the resolution?

You didn't find the pure appeal to emotion and casting aspersions on the repeal author's character "grinchey"?

Caracasus wrote:

from the TG

The nation behind this proposed repeal (one of the co-authors, and author of the 2nd condemnation) has themself said of the repeal: “Its probably a horrible idea” [sic]. Their motivation is that they were “bored and wanted something to do” (their words).

I, on the other hand, am not bored. I have things to do, like collect food donations for the local food bank, toiletries for the homeless shelter, and cash to help fund their Christmas dinner. I need to wind up things at my full time job, as I start a new one on 2nd January. I have over 100 presents to wrap, and an extended-family Christmas to prepare for. I really have better things to spend my time on, and better things to spend $25 on than telegram stamps campaigning against a destructive resolution like this one.

So please, make my time and money worth it.

This is the bit that rubbed people up the wrong way. Honestly, it comes across as a bit I'm a very important rocket surgeon' intentionally or otherwise. It'd have been better if the author had left it out.

That sounds like satire, something you'd see in a copypasta, or some sort of derivative of /r/iamverysmart.

Well I am number 7 in highest drug use and number 5 in scientific advancement in Forest. It appears that Caracasusian scientists are asking the really important questions like 'have you ever really thought about what it must be like to be a bee?' And 'whose turn is it to go to the commisary for snacks? It's not mine because I made the tea.'

So there's a Christmas Post an Account from your nation prompt. Pick two stats, and describe how they work together.