ForestBoard

Bananaistan wrote:

Edit: Also again regarding the WA. I'd urge people to consider voting against the current at-vote in the GA, Drug Decriminalization Act, for the reasons outlined in the repeal already drafted by Abacathea: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=510241

I also urge people to consider voting against the current at-vote in the GA, Drug Decriminalization Act. I agree with Abacathea reasoning and this particular quote stands out to me as particularly worrisome:

"Lamenting that clause 3a, sweepingly and broadly mandates the decriminalization of drugs for the purpose of "simple possession" without any consideration towards mitigating factors eg; The quantity of a controlled drug in a persons possession, nature of the adverse effects or addictive nature of said controlled drug or classification of the drug in question," -Abacathea

Let's face it, Drug Decriminalization does nothing towards solving the root problem: addiction and overdose.

Daarwyrth wrote:

I am not sure whether the WA can be considered a small part of the game, considering how one proposal influences thousands of players. Sure, many nations in the game function perfectly fine outside the WA, I think even most nations. Yet it is still a part of the game that is fairly present and far-reaching with its effects. Or at least, it appears as such to me.

The WA itself, the proposal writing, pretending it's international law and in part also the RP is what I enjoyed and what made me join the WA and be active in it. Proposal writing was always a really fun experience, like a puzzle that you were piecing together. I don't presume to speak for others, but I think that element in itself is not what people dislike so much about the WA.

For me it's the way a part of the prominent members in the handful of people who like to play-pretend at international law conduct themselves. I often felt that I wasn't in the WA, but that I was in their WA. In addition, there is also just so much negativity between that handful, constant sniping at one another, trying to bring one another down. Like, sure, that's a reflection of reality, but the thing is that the negativity isn't play-pretend, it's real and very tangible. I can't deny that one of the prominent members of the WA made me feel really unwelcome and unwanted, and considering that I play NS to have fun in my free time to escape the real world at least a little bit, it's not really what I want to engage with.

I can't speak for other people whether that is the reason why they dislike or have come to dislike the WA, but for me it's just the way how a large part of the people currently playing that part of the game run that part of the game. I mean sure, international politics is meant to be turbulent and fraught with political intrigue, as long as it's all play-pretend. Sadly, I feel that is not the case currently in the WA, and that it is instead very real and personal.

I agree

Daarwyrth wrote:

For me it's the way a part of the prominent members in the handful of people who like to play-pretend at international law conduct themselves. I often felt that I wasn't in the WA, but that I was in their WA. In addition, there is also just so much negativity between that handful, constant sniping at one another, trying to bring one another down. Like, sure, that's a reflection of reality, but the thing is that the negativity isn't play-pretend, it's real and very tangible. I can't deny that one of the prominent members of the WA made me feel really unwelcome and unwanted, and considering that I play NS to have fun in my free time to escape the real world at least a little bit, it's not really what I want to engage with.

I'd be very much appreciative if people could send me private messages with particular concerning instances such as this. Not just specifically you Daar, and only if you want to. We've been trying to stamp out unwelcoming behaviour. I'd like to see it pointed out from players who have been on the receiving end. Not so that I'd go cause a fuss now but so that I might recognise it in future and call it out then.

Quick question as this is my first election cycle here in Forest: Are we allowed to publicly endorse a particular candidate or do we just speak with our vote?

Bananaistan wrote:

Regarding WA. Is there a list of Forestian authors and resolutions?

Interesting you should ask, I had plans for an "Our Celebrated Forestians" hall-of-fame type thing where all of our WA resolution authors, issue authors, commended nations and condemned nations would be listed. Of course, the hourglass runneth out and I could only fit so many initiatives into one term. We'll see what happens after these elections, I suppose.

I was actually dithering over whether to include counts in the various lists, because I think our attitude here has always been one of lifting each other up to achieve even more rather than competing with each other. On the other hand, I can see how linking to the respective passed resolutions/published issues would be in the common interest and may boost regional pride/inspire others to get involved. It would be a challenge for anyone to link all 100+ issues written by CWA, though, or to track who has done what when some of our issue-writing nations (for example) aren't active on the RMB and when the total is always changing.

Bananaistan wrote:

- on WA blocs -

I agree; I think the votes of Forestian WA nations should be the only votes that influence our Delegate's voting. I'm also not in favour of a Forest WA panel providing official voting recommendations, because likewise the Delegate should be primarily influenced by the arguments of Forestian WA nations and not a small, non-representative group. In an unofficial capacity, I have no issue with a group of nations coming together and posting their thoughts on WA proposals, but they shouldn't have any power above any other person posting their thoughts on the RMB. I'm up for boosting WA involvement and discussion, but it should be everyone's involvement and discussion.

In line with what The Cypher Nine said, and repeating what I have previously said during my tenure as Culture Minister: "real clout, the kind that garners respect from your regionmates here, comes from engaging with the community and boosting regional activity, not from an official title". Nations should get involved in whatever way they see fit, whenever they see fit, official titles be damned. Sounds weird for an erstwhile Culture Minister to ask people to do what was his job, but I say the more the merrier and that all attempts at community engagement from anyone here improves our region for the better.

Bananaistan wrote:

I'd also be interested to know why some people here have such a negative opinion of the WA? I often think people don't realise that it is what it's meant to be: a tiny part of the game for the handful of people who like to write pretend international law.

Uh... exactly what Daar said. Feels like a small group of people want to keep their place at the top of a lonely WA mountain and are not opposed to causing real distress to others so they can maintain said position. It doesn't help that I contrast it with Got Issues, where there's a sense of commenters wanting others to succeed, even if it's done in a way that's brusque or misguided. An issue published by any author is a win for the whole community there - almost the opposite of the feeling I get from the WA.

Forest Virginia wrote:

Quick question as this is my first election cycle here in Forest: Are we allowed to publicly endorse a particular candidate or do we just speak with our vote?

Hi, hello, welcome. We do get some people publicly endorsing near the end of campaign week, but most "speak with their vote", as you say - myself included. There aren't any rules either way, but as I say most people wanting to endorse a candidate do so after every candidate has had their chance to campaign and answer questions, which I think makes sense.

Terrabod wrote:

Uh... exactly what Daar said. Feels like a small group of people want to keep their place at the top of a lonely WA mountain and are not opposed to causing real distress to others so they can maintain said position. It doesn't help that I contrast it with Got Issues, where there's a sense of commenters wanting others to succeed, even if it's done in a way that's brusque or misguided. An issue published by any author is a win for the whole community there - almost the opposite of the feeling I get from the WA.

Yes, exactly! Maybe it's because I started out in Got Issues as well and then got into writing in the WA, but it's exactly as you say. In GI people want to genuinely help you produce good content, and help you improve your writing. In the WA it's exactly the opposite, where a set group of players create the impression that they don't want anyone new to join in. Instead of genuinely helping you improve your drafts or writing, I strongly get the impression that helpful tips are purposefully withheld and only presented during a challenge or at a point where it's very difficult or impossible to fix it. It's as you say, it contrasts the GI forums so much, so much so that it's almost as if those players don't want you to succeed. They want you to fail or quit so that they can stay at the top of their lonely mountain.

EDIT: A good example of this is when a new player or a player without much knowledge of the customs and ways of the WA goes and submits a proposal without drafting. Prominent members of the WA community will then post the draft in the forums anyway and bash it into the ground, and rarely the commentary or feedback is actually helpful. Sure, often there will be also players who mistakenly believe their writing to be excellent, but it almost always ends up to be a bash-fest without actually trying to help that person understand the WA's customs. When the same happens in the GI forums, namely a new players isn't aware of all the customs yet, posters point out what they did wrong and politely explain how they can correct their mistake.

Bananaistan wrote:

With respect Daar, you got plenty of helpful feedback in all your threads in the GA and you successfully passed 3 resolutions (in less than six months from your first post in the GA forums).

I think one bad experience where nobody spotted the issue in Protections During Territorial Transitions is clouding your judgement a bit. By any reasonable metric, you have had a very successful foray into the GA and I genuinely hope that you'll come back to it.

Not chiefly talking about myself, but also what I saw and see happen in other people's threads and projects. Yes, I do lean a lot at the moment on that experience, because it was essentially the final drop that made it all overflow. But there were preceding instances that basically each added their own drop into the bucket.

I cannot deny that most of the time I got useful and great feedback, for which I have been always grateful and happy. Yet I feel that doesn't compensate for what happened to other players in the same forums. To speak in metaphors: sure, my first harvest was a good one, but when you notice that many harvests around you are going badly, even though a lot of effort was put into them, you start to wonder whether something's not right with the soil.

I'm not the type of person that can go ahead because things are going okay or good for me, even though there were also less than pleasant occurrences. The GI forums always left me with good feelings when I could help someone or someone helped me, the WA not so much as time progressed. Maybe I'm looking at it through too negative a lense at the moment, but the sentiment I am currently feeling is being echoed back more often than not from what I hear and see on the site. Don't get me wrong, what you say is sensible, and perhaps my judgement may be a little clouded at the moment, but it wasn't a singular event that led me to feel like this.

But yeah, I think you get my viewpoint already and I am very interested in hearing how others feel about the subject :)

EDIT: I do want to clarify that I don't blame anyone in the WA forums for not catching the error in Territorial Transitions earlier. No one other than Imperium Anglorum noticed it, after all, and honestly that is totally understandable.

Difinbelk wrote:

Apparently I'm just a sucker for new idioms/metaphors/similes/etc bc this, licking a tree and hoping for maple syrup, and oopsie daisies all slap
Also, does anyone know how to permalink a post w/o quoting it first?

Find the post (either by scrolling or by searching for it in forum view) and click on "x days/weeks/months ago" under the poster's name and flag. That should take you to a page with just the post by itself, and you can link that url in your post with the code:

[url=xxxxx][/url]

Immmmm baaaaaaaaaaaack!

Now now friend - you know our feelings about double-posting of spammy things.

Welcome back!

Difinbelk wrote:

On Article 5, I assume this means we'd have a poll-based mini vote for every GA bill (as opposed to the WAD basically becoming a puppet of the FK)?
On that note, does legislation encompass SC bills too or just the GA bills w/ stat effects?

I was thinking just making sure that the WAD votes with the majority of forest voters as you can see under the proposals when they are at vote. It would apply to both GA and SC. Also, i did not know there were stat effects for GA resolutions.

Ruinenlust wrote:

<<<--Official N-Day Post-->>>

It seems Daarwyrth's anti-WMD policy will be suspended by Royal Decree for one day, hehe c:<

I guess the nuclear apocalypse is close enough to start playing Italy's banger of an Emergency Alert System (https://youtu.be/3VMf4QizupQ). No one said we can't go down while bouncing to the beat of nuclear explosions!