«12. . .2,6412,6422,6432,6442,6452,6462,647. . .2,6522,653»
Eurofounder hardly controls Europe.
He's a figurehead essentially, he only jumped in because the people who actually have power were being overwhelmed.
Honestly, I recommend that you do some research into EuroFounder and the history of Europe as a whole, since you clearly don't understand it currently. I don't mean this in a malicious way necessarily, I just think it would make a lot of things surrounding this much more clearer, if you get what I mean.
How is the forest doing on this wonderful day?
It's quite fine right now but we had a heated discussion here on the RMB that his since died down.
Not what I was discussing, and they may not officially control it but they still keep the governor position.
Atsvea and Lord Dominator
Clearly you're not from Europe...
Eurofounder's position has very little actual power, and all of that seems to be emergency powers excersised during the raid. The position of Governor carries with it no power during the everyday running of the region.
You are arguing with Europeans about the founder of their very own region, clearly without doing any research into said leader's powers.
Hello I am back yet again
Power belonging to a person who doesn't know how to use it does not sound like a good idea.
Atsvea and Lord Dominator
Yes, but the entire extent of his power is extremely limited emergency powers that can only come into play during disasters that threaten the very existence of the region of Europe, like for example a certain raid.
Essentially it's scraping the bottom of the barrel for anyone who is both willing and vaguely capable of helping the regional government.
He has roughly as much power as the Emperor of Japan I think.
Hello! Welcome back!
Just to let you know, we tend to try and avoid short, one-line posts. They tend to get suppressed...
We also currently have a few things going on. You may have seen that we have a new forest keeper (zerphen) and a few new government officials (you may be speaking to one, hehe).
We also are currently having a (rather large) discussion about having connections to Astoria as you may have seen in the poll. Feel free to share your thoughts!
The other thing I have time to mention right now is that we now have weekly trivia competitions hosted by yours truly (#shameless plug, lol). The questions are pinned in the WFE and you can find the rules in a dispatch that I'll try and edit in...
Welcome back!
Have a great day...
(P.S. sorry if I've missed anything)
You get a pass on this one, but welcome back!
Edit:
Yes but the thing is, Euro founder does have power, he is the *technical* founder of the region. I don't know what you're trying to argue here with how he has no power whatsoever, he does. He just chooses not to use it most of the time because he doesn't need to because Europe already has their own government system, and secondly because they are not active quite often.
Edit 2:
Butttt, I do see where you're coming from, they basically don't influence anything the region democratically does. No one cares about Euro's opinions (if he gave any) in elections made by the WA delegate because in the region's eyes, Euro founder is not their leader.
Einswenn, Jutsa, Atsvea, Lord Dominator, and 3 othersZerphen, Belevia, and Greater Morvonia
We tend not to see this language in Forest discussions and my sense is that most people feel they come to Forest as themselves as opposed to playing a part. Obviously most people answer issues in accordance with the character of their fictional nation and may share that nation's lore, but AFAIK nobody takes part in regional discussion in that persona.
In particular, a large number of people here dislike raiding because it spoils the game for others. If your region is disrupted or destroyed without consent then that inherently happens out of character. If there was a poll on whether the possibility of raiding should be removed from the game (assuming that was technically possible) I believe Forest might well vote yes. So there's a significant weight of opinion that fails to recognise the idea of good raiding that occurs in character only and benefits the game. This is where we differ from defenders who oppose raiders but also need them, and why we're more likely to describe raiders as bullies than "darkspawn" or similar role play terminology.
Hi MS; Firstly, thank you for your excellent post in general. "Poorly-worded" only ever applies to me, and certainly not you here :P
I'll say one thing of note about GP influence: Absolute agreement. xD But while I get wanting to avoid going down the route of over-complication, I'll note that doesn't always make FA easier; if anything it's kind of a necessary step if you want to get involved with some of the larger regions these days. I'd actually talked with another GCR about their process (who themselves might - potentially - be interested one day) in which you virtually have to hold an off-site relationship before an embassy. In that sense, a simpler process is more of a hinderance. (which is not inherently a bad thing, I come back to that.)
And as we've seen with TNP, we especially know why: most large regions have a very different government culture from RMB culture. We ourselves have a markedly different discord culture, which is certainly more akin to how normal regions run their RMBs. (It's very rare for the RMB to not be at least one place of choice for chattier behavior lol; truly we are special in that regard and I'm eternally grateful for that.)
While I do agree with the general sentiment that having another "layer" to this complicates things, I don't think it does unnecessarily. I reiterate that NS is complicated; different places work differently from us. All we have is a (very specific) process for on-site embassies. We could - eventually - talk about possibly extending that to include non-embassy, off-site formal relationships as well, so we don't have to sort-of "guess" what to do... Although, that certainly gets into even muddier water as soon as we get involved with interregional organizations like N-Day events. In which case I'm personally in favor of an opinion poll sorta like what we're doing with Astoria, notably since it wouldn't bear nearly as much of an impact on our RMB community and usually wouldn't even be remotely as controversial as this one has been.
But - hey, that's a debate we could certainly have if anyone wanted. (I know, I keep bringing this up, I'll shut up about FA soon. We still have one more request.) I can certainly also see an argument of "we shouldn't change our process just to accommodate others" and in that sense preferring to stick to creating simpler relationships with smaller regions, if any at all: I know a lot of folks prefer things be much more quiet around here, and as we've seen with this very discussion, most of us prefer to just ignore GP drama entirely. Or at the very least observe from a very safe distance.
I'll leave on the note that we don't have any constitutional recognition of treaties either. That's another layer entirely, though that doesn't mean we don't still respect the three we have or follow them closely... *ahem*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also, for context to folks here who don't exactly know how our relationship with TNP works (I don't think anyone fully does): We have two ambassadors, one incoming and one outgoing. Kaschovia shares TNP updates / news (which may include invitations to certain events) with the region via discord and forum, so as to not clog our RMB. (Did you know we have those? Read the wfe! #umpteenthshamelessplug) Prusmia kinda does something similar although I think she hangs out a bit more (which is a bit easier when you're not also running a gigantic region).
I do realize that means very few people here actually interact with them much at all, although tbf I'd argue that's sort-of the case for most of our embassies. (I think there are a couple we literally haven't touched in years...)
Like I already said, calling raiding bullying happens very often and is very incorrect.
Jutsa, Atsvea, and Lord Dominator
It’s been proven correct quite well. Of course you, as a raider, wouldn’t like to accept being called that, however, arguments and allegories backing this point have been convincing enough.
I know some people think that raiding is an inherent part of the game, and I can appreciate that argument, even if I personally would rather it wasn't part of it.
However, I find myself getting exasperated by legalistic arguments about whether a particular region "deserved" to be raided, or whether raiding meets the technical definition of "bullying," or whether, in some creative way, the raid is actually BENEFITING the region, or whether the raiders hold some particular feelings of animosity towards their victims.
We all know that raiders intentionally do things that create a negative experience for other players. Might as well own it and proceed from there.
In some raiders' "defense" (haha gp pun hhghv) they absolutely own up to it. One of the top guys from my old raid group used to say, with our relationship with GP, "We're all jack[censored]s, we just acknowledge it". I always thought that was pretty funny.
But yeah raids become beyond messy as soon as you get moralism into it - basically an ideological superiority that sort-of blurs IC with OOC - which, for most non-GP regions (and quite honestly sometimes GP too), I think the two are often a lot closer than most GPers care to admit. I think that can apply to pacifists, defenders and fash-bashers just as easily.
Many will absolutely argue (some for the sake of arguing and fun, probably most out of passionate genuine belief) that some aspects of the site would be significantly worse without raiding. I think like any weapon it can be used for both good and bad, but like most weapons, many will see as only a tool for destruction and unnecessary cruelty. Which, I'd expect would be a majority opinion in our neutral/pacifist political/philosophical region ;p
Post by Bourenmouth Fanclub suppressed by 
Ruinenlust.
Day two of the UCl Quarterfinals!! Barcelona had a great 3-2 victory against PSG. Hoping the next leg will bring just as much excitement. Jeez wonder what other 3-2 game there was, maybe a hat trick?
Atlético de Madrid got an easy 2-1 victory against Borriusa Dortmund. Could be trouble for BVB as they travel to Spain in their next leg. El Otro Clásico for the semifinals maybe 👀
Hi everyone,
I have not said anything about a number of discussion points over the last few days, but I've also been avidly reading everything on the RMB and doing some communication with a few people behind the scenes whenever I could be of help. I wanted to just bring the region up to speed with everything on my end. There are no bombshells or anything; in fact, I've spoilered things by topic, because I doubt most people will find all of it interesting or pertinent. Also, while my involvement would be necessary for some things at certain points, I want to emphasize that the Government is the government, and I'm not part of it, so I'm off to the side unless it can't be otherwise or unless I'm asked for an opinion or whatever.
Several people have said this already, but I just want to emphasize that Zerphen, Jutsa, and the rest of the government did not do anything unconstitutional with this poll, with their communications with Astoria, or with the more generalized concept of non-embassy (sub-embassy? para-embassy?) relations. The constitution simply does not address any form of standing interregional relationship which operates without or outside of the in-game mechanic of an embassy. Yet, the constitution also contains something of an "elastic clause" with Article 3, Clause 6, which states that "All powers not expressly covered in the Constitution may be used in whatever way the Forest Keeper and associated Regional Officers determine appropriate." Indeed, as 
Uan aa Boa remarked, Zerphen and Jutsa in fact went above and beyond in their commitment to consensus and public participation in policy, because they could have privately decided to either create non-embassy relations with Astoria or to reject the notion out of hand, without any sort of public involvement. That might have been bad politics, but that's not something covered by the constitution, and so it is to Zerphen and Jutsa's credit that they saw fit to include the community in these discussions and to create an ad hoc way (i.e. the poll) to base their decision on.
In another vein, and as others have pointed out, such as 
Verdant Haven, personal attacks on our duly elected, legally-operating government officials is neither appropriate nor helpful. It makes me sad to see that, and while I am personally guilty of speaking from a place of anger and heat at times in the past, I also want to echo several people's calls for being calm, taking a moment to reflect, and actually reading the entirety of people's posts, as 
Anxious and Kevin explicitly called for. We're all on the same side in terms of wanting the best for Forest and for each other, and we should always keep that presumption of good will in mind unless and until we are unequivocally shown otherwise.
This is the least important of the four sections, and it doesn't matter much at all, but in the spirit of community involvement, I’d like to just briefly give a couple of personal thoughts on the vote. I am of the personal opinion that it is appropriate for Europe (or any other embassy region) to at least voice their concerns or thoughts whenever we embark on another potential interregional form of relations. Obviously the decision rests with us, but by having already formed embassies with other regions, and by in fact becoming so close that several of our own community members are Europe's expats, that means that we've essentially affirmed that we value their presence and their opinion. If you are friends with someone and you become so close that they have a drawer of their own things in your house, they can and should share their opinions if you seem like you might do something that they personally feel is bad or unwise. Even some of the most acerbic comments in the last few days can be interpreted as coming from a friend who fears being hurt or double-crossed, especially if some of the language is softened.
Moreover, there is the whole defender-raider dynamic at play here, and I personally have no use for raiding whatsoever. I don't see a purpose in it, and if regions want to roleplay as "raiders" and "defenders" and stage mock-up wars between each other, consensually, then that amounts to gameplay BDSM, and that's their business. On the other hand, non-consensual raids are simply stupid, wrong, etc. The only time I would ever gleefully wield my infinite ban/banjection-hammer would be to slap down raiders, and our region's functional immunity from that crap is the single best feature of the Stronghold/Governor dynamic. To me, non-consensual raiding is not exactly like bullying, it's more like breaking into someone's home or invading another country. If someone breaks into your home in real life, you have every right to get security systems, the police, a huge dog, or your shotgun, where I'm from. Murica.
As such, I am voting against the proposed non-embassy relations with Astoria. However, so as to emphasize that it's in my personal capacity as a resident, and not as the Head of State, I'm doing it with my puppet.
Beyond the current vote, and far more interesting (in my opinion), is the wider issue of the lack of constitutional language about non-embassy relations. Article 6 covers embassy formation and closure, along with the ambassador program to embassy regions. However, there's just nothing in the document about "formal" relations with another region in such a way that no embassy is created. I was consulted before this poll was launched about whether such a vote was constitutional at all (another sign of Zerphen & Jutsa's due diligence), and I found that nothing prevented or limited such things. It's like looking in the Bible for how to access new iOS features. Not on the map.
I share 
Garbelia's voiced concern about that fact, and I also share 
Mount Seymour's concern about the potential for bureaucratic bloat if we were to make a huge system for non-embassy relations. In my experience, things not directly covered by gameplay mechanics tend to rise and fall with the varying levels of interest by individuals from one term to the next. Consider how active the ambassador program is in this term, and contrast it with how weak it was when I used to be the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for example. And yet, the potential issue with non-embassy relations is that at present, there's nothing to guide, limit, standardize, or safeguard non-embassy relations at all. We sort of unknowingly dipped our toes into this pool with The North Pacific embassy closure poll, and frankly, I did not know what our "offsite relations" amounted to until Jutsa just explained it a little while ago. What would stop a future administration from choosing to interpret "offsite" or "non-embassy" relations as "I'll send them good vibes by smiling at my computer screen once, and that's it"? Nothing.
Where I'm going with this (and some of you surely saw this coming), is that perhaps we ought to have a conversation about non-embassy relations, especially now that we only have one example of such a thing (i.e. with TNP). Maybe a small clause should be added to Article 6 via constitutional amendment? Do we want to have such a category of non-embassy relations at all? Do we want to let each instance be entirely sui generis and ad hoc, or do we want some kind of system, however minimal and open-ended? What does “non-embassy relations” actually mean? How do we live that out as a region? What are its features? Do those relations have to essentially be renewed at the discretion of each new Administration, or are they enduring until formally cancelled, like an embassy? It might be good to figure out where we stand on this issue before we embark on a second iteration of "non-embassy relations," simply in the spirit of consistency and organization.
In a similar vein to the last point, perhaps there is enough community interest in looking at Article 2, Clause 2, which reads, in part: "Forest is neither a raider region, nor is it a defender region. Nations in Forest are expected to not undertake any sort of inter-regional ‘military’ action (raiding or defending). Forest will not act as a staging ground for military operation. There are only two narrow exceptions to this rule..." Is it good as it is? Should it be changed? Should it be left, but added to for greater clarity? Some, like 
Candlewhisper Archive, have indicated interest in amending this clause, and I imagine that some others would similarly be in favor of such a thing. Others, like Mount Seymour, feel like revision is not necessary, and I imagine that some other are also in favor of that. Still others like Verdant Haven have drawn the distinction that we don't have to be constitutionally on one side or the other in order to be culturally and personally of a strong opinion. We clearly do not have the interest to become formally aligned or favorable to raiders (understatement of the year), but perhaps we ought to have a discussion about whether we want to make some kind of change in favor of anti-raiding or defending, or whether it's best to leave things as-is, or whether to make some other kind of change. Not so long ago, we had a discussion surrounding the adding of tags to the region, and whether certain tags were called for, or whether a commonly-held value or perspective did not necessarily have to be reflected in the tags in order for us to adequately express who we are and what we value as a region.
There are differences of opinion on the wider question of defending/raiding, and also on what the status of Forest in light of that should be, and so perhaps it is something that warrants a more involved and purposeful discussion, in order to achieve some clarity. And perhaps that discussion simply concludes that everything is fine and that no changes are required. But at least that way, we'd know that we have sort of recalibrated our collective GPS to find our true location, so to speak.
~
Feel free to disregard this post if you're not into constitutional stuff or if you are done with the Astoria vote thing. I don't think I've said anything new or groundbreaking here, or at least I should say that I don't mean to. The briefest summary of the four sections possible is 1. ”the system is working," 2. ”I'm voting no," 3. ”maybe we should talk more about this," and 4. ”maybe we should talk more about this, too."
I hope everyone is doing well! 🌷
can someone explain to me how raiding works? Because from what I know it doesn't sound good, especially if if you're a raider you can raid someone without their permission. But honestly I don't understand how raiding works so if someone could give me a short explanation that would be appreciated.
Esterild, Jutsa, Atsvea, Ruinenlust, and 2 othersLord Dominator, and Greater Morvonia
Honestly, that was one of the best posts I've had the pleasure of reading in a good while, and I thank you for writing it.
I would just like to put out there (and this is just my personal stance), that I would be in favour of us shifting somewhat to an explicitly anti-raider position, should the matter arise again. People have called it bullying, burglary, whatever, (I personally think that it could be called a number of things, depending on each scenario. Maybe even liberation in the rarest of cases, but that's beside the point.) in this corner of NS, it is clearly the majority opinion that it is bad. While this region is largely neutral, I believe it would be pragmatic to shift to an anti-raider position in part to discourage raider regions from wishing to ally with us, thus avoiding kerfuffles like we have seen over the past 48 hours, and in part because it seems that currently the majority of notable nations (i.e. those that talk on the message boards, forums, and largely engage in regional happenings), see it in an unfavourable way, and thus, the official position of the region would reflect the position of its (vocal) inhabitants.
There are, of course, many arguments against this, and I will say that this is not an official call to shift to such position, but I just thought I would put it out there for discussion, seeing it has already been brought up once or twice.
While I personally would vote against such a change, I would personally say that the position of Forest seems to be more against region griefing in general than solely anti-raider. Again, raiding (occupations, operations, liberations, whatever you call it) is something all regions with a military do, and we certainly have relations with regions that do that. (Sometimes against each other.) I would probably vote against that too, but, well, if either anti-occupation or anti-raider were something Forest as a whole would want to cover in a constitutional amendment (say to 2.2 and/or somewhere in article 6) or in our embassy policy, we could probably talk about doing that, since I proposed and we passed a provision for individuals to call for amendments in article 9. I just think it's worth being weary of the potential domino affects such a change could bring in the future. (And will admit it wasn't even remotely one of the dozen or so amendments I'd been considering the past two years ;p)
And yes, A&K, you're correct in that you absolutely reserve the right to call for an amendment, so I thank you for the clarification that you're explicitly not doing that in your post lol.
I think the gameplay forum has a pretty good basic rundown of the idea: 
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=307728
But I haven't read through that thing (at least not recently) so feel free to tg me any questions you might have (even if I'm not the greatest of sources ;p)
Put extremely briefly, a bunch of raider nations get together, move to their target region, and all endorse one of their own number. If all goes according to plan, the endorsed raider nation then has the most endorsements in the region and automatically becomes the World Assembly delegate, thereby gaining control of the region.
I've been thinking about this post ever since I saw it, and I would like to say a few things. With my posts, it was never my intention to personally hurt you or anybody in your region. In your region's case, I do not think your anti-fascist stance is simply a pretense used to justify raiding; it seems to me that your anti-fascist views are genuine and passionate. My thoughts in my previous posts have not changed, so I cannot issue a fake apology saying that I regret what I said, but I will say that maybe my tone could have been gentler. Although I disagree with the actions and opinions of raiders, I do not think that you and other raiders are bad people. Your behavior in our region is very admirable to me. Despite the tough crowd, you answered everyone's questions and concerns with patience and goodwill, which is commendable.
Hey everyone!
I know Ru has already made a post about this, but I just want to say this has certainly been a very robust discussion to say the least :P I am very happy to see that so many people have come here to voice their opinions in favor or against relations with Astoria. Even if we may not agree, it's heartening to see the lively Forest democratic process at work!
I also want to give a short thank you to everyone who made a statement to calm the discussion down. I was completely expecting that the vote would trend the way it has, but I did not foresee discussion being as volatile as it was in the first few hours. I'm glad that we had many people come here to express the need to tone things down just a bit, and those that were perhaps a bit too impassioned have :p
I think discussion has more or less ended at this point; most people are quite firmly entrenched with the position they have in the vote now and most of what needed to be said has been said. However, as this is an opinion poll meant to gauge community interest, I am interested in probing discussion just a little bit further. With that in mind I have two hypothetical questions to ask you all, feel free to answer them or not!
1) Do you think you could support Forest having relations with Astoria if they had never involved themselves in the raid on Europe?
2) Do you think you could support Forest having relations with Astoria if there was some reconciliation effort on the part of Astoria to fix things up between their two regions? The idea of this has been floated around a bit both here and behind the scenes, and it looks likely that we may pursue that, but I'm curious if something like this would be enough in the eyes of our region or to Europe to atone at all for the damage caused enough to consider embassies.
Of course, I know there is a number of people who would be against any form of relations with Astoria because they are raiders, but I get the impression that there are a number of people that might still be open to the idea if this had never happened or if they reconciled things with them. We kinda have moved a bit to another topic of discussion with Ru's post, so I hope you all don't mind me asking this on top of everything Ru is talking about :P
And on that note, I'll give my thoughts on Ru's points:
I understand there is a point to be made about recognizing non-embassy relations bloating and confusing an already confusing Foreign Affairs process, but I don't think it's completely senseless or useless to do so. Many larger regions nowadays would require that you open non-embassy off-site relations before you can move to forming an embassy. I think being able to Constitutionally recognize off-site relations, and also recognize an official process for how we bring them to vote and how they work, is simply Forest keeping up with the times. For what this would entail, I think it would require sending an ambassador like we do with our embassies, who would send and receive any notices or updates from our or the other region's government, and extending an invitation to any cultural events we would hold. I will say, even if this is something I pursued with this vote on Astoria, that I would prefer this process is used sparingly, that being only when it seems necessary given the circumstances or when it may be required by the other regional government to do so. This is mainly because we do operate mostly on-site, and I know there are a few people who would rather (understandably) keep away from things like Discord who would be left out of anything done off-site.
Bare with me here, I have a lot of thoughts on this.
I would be opposed to a change in our Constitution to recognize a Forest-wide stance against griefing or raiding. I believe this goes against Forest's, the region, historical position of neutrality and uninvolvedness in Gameplay. I make this distinction clear between Forest the region and Forest the community. I believe Forest, the community, can have a stance on such things, and I welcome varying perspectives on raiding and defending in the interest of good discussion and debate. Our community's position does trend towards recognizing griefing as a bad action that can destroy another community, and I myself, if you can believe it, would enumerate myself as one such person that stands against such things. But, in the interest of welcoming many perspectives and discussion, I do not believe we should Constitutionally consider our entire region or community as anti-raider/anti-griefing.
I also welcome a more Frontierist approach to gameplay, where some organizations target regions that don't provide a good experience for newer players. While that is certainly the destruction of a community, I believe in this case it is to the benefit of NationStates that we hold Frontiers to a higher standard of quality especially when it is the first experience that newer players will have with this site and a poor region may turn them away. Of course, there are valid arguments about who gets to be the arbiters of life and death and what that standard for quality is or should be, but I digress.
I do not like anything that upsets a region or community, especially a more established or well-maintained one with a strong regional culture. There are varying degrees of what that is, in del-tipping which I do not mind as much considering it does not cause any tangible destruction to a community though does understandably upset people, and short invasions ejecting a lot of natives, like in Europe, which cause a great deal of destruction and are more heinous.
Where I am most opposed is when this leads to the complete eradication of a community or region, especially when such a region is more well established, has a strong community, and provides some net-positive to the experience of this site. In more recent memory, I would list the destruction of Solidarity here, which completely destroyed a joint frontier of NSLeft and our allies in TLA because of their association with TCB, who associated with TBH and began joining them in not-explicitly fash-bash operations, and only associated with them because (to my understanding, I recognize I don't have all of the facts and historical knowledge here) TNP didn't want to associate with them or help them with some of their fash-bashing operations.
I think, generally speaking, raiding is tentatively okay nowadays where we have an opt-in system through Frontiers and Strongholds. A big part of the reason I and others would have more strongly opposed raiding in the past is because it would affect regions that aren't interested in military gameplay. Now that there is an option to opt-in to that, I think such frontiers are acceptable targets for raids. Though with me holding a frontierist position, I wouldn't want a raid to happen to just any frontier like one that provides a good experience for newer players, but rather those that don't provide a good experience for new players. Of course, there are other ways that non-frontier regions can and are affected by military gameplay, Europe being the foremost one in this discussion since they have an executive WAD, but also many other founderless/governorless regions like our friends in IDU (edit: I just realized IDU is not in fact founderless/governorless, I don't know where I got that misconception :/ Canada would be accurate though), as well as with stealth operations to take the governorship of a region like in Magna Aurea.
One more point on this I will say, and you are welcome to call this perhaps naive or cold-hearted, but I believe any region or community that wants to exist will exist. Even if a region is completely destroyed, as long as there is some level of love or care by the members of that community they will find a way to stay on the site, even in the face of total annihilation. This is made easier by the fact that many regions have an off-site community nowadays and would be able to better coordinate such an effort. That is not to undersell the destruction, harm, and grief caused by invasions of complete annihilation, just to say that those regions and communities that do matter to some people will find a way to persist in adversity.
To refer to a common analogy used against raiding and griefing in general, a bully may have destroyed your sandcastle, but the memories and feelings of love for that sandcastle are still there, and you can always rebuild your sandcastle with the friends you have made who also liked that sandcastle. Your sandcastle may be gone, but ultimately it is only that, a sandcastle. The friends and memories associated with that sandcastle are more important than the sandcastle itself, and while you may be understandably upset for a while, you can still move forward, either to make a new sandcastle or otherwise.
Now, for a broader point on this, is how we would actually implement such a change. Would it be a Constitutional recognition that Forest the community generally opposes the griefing of other regions? Is it that Forest the region opposes griefing? What are the implications of Forest the community versus Forest the region opposing griefing? Does this dip in to our Foreign Affairs policy at all? Does this mean we should bar current raiders from being a part of our community or participating in discussion? If so, should we start witch-hunting to purge any of the raiders in our midst?
To answer my own questions with my own opinions:
I am very, VERY strongly opposed to any notion that we should bar raiders from being a part of our community or participating in discussion. I don't know how the rest of the community feels about this, but I really do not like anything to socially ostracize or disenfranchise an entire group of people for how they choose to play the game. A group of people which, mind you, I don't think are or should be considered inherently bad or evil. One example of this outside of our region is the Modern Gameplay Compact, an interregional treaty between a lot of neomoralist defender regions such as The League, Balder, Europeia, and TNP (bite me, they definitely fall in line as a neomoralist defender organization in their actions even if they say they are independent), in which they not only bar certain raider organizations from participating in their events, which is honestly completely fair in a practical "we're at war why would we let you join our events" sense, but also extend this to barring participation by their own members from any event hosted a raider region by or operated by a resident of a raider organization, and urging strong votes against any Security Council resolutions that recognize the actions of raiders even in cases of condemnation, all of which I think is backwards, goes against the spirit of the game, and does not promote a fun, inclusive, or lighthearted military engagement between some good vs evil regions but rather promotes a toxic hatred against players for playing the game. I would absolutely not want Forest to go in this direction and I sincerely hope everyone here would feel the same.
I also would not want this to dip into our Foreign Affairs policy. I think I've made that stance abundantly clear with my support for relations with Astoria, but there are a lot of other practical reasons for this. I think it is in the best interest of our region to be open to any and all possible relationships and opportunities, and I don't think a gameplay stance we have little stake in outside of our commitment to our allies should preclude us from considering such a possibility. Taking such a stance in our Foreign Affairs also goes against our region's historic neutrality, and if we would recognize that we shouldn't have relations with regions that have or do grief other regions, then considering Solidarity and that many of our allies participated in that raid we would have a lot of cleaning up to do.
I'll be clear in saying this now though, that even though I am against the raid on Solidarity, I am, for all the reasons I have stated here, not interested in pursuing some policy of breaking ties with such regions that have participated in that or future raids. Solidarity was a tragedy and I do not support what happened there, but many of those regions that participated in that like XKI and TSP are also great regions in their own right and I believe association with them is positive for Forest. I just want to bring this up since if we would enshrine this in our Foreign Affairs, it would have to follow, unless we are interested in some absurd hypocrisy, that we would break relations with these regions, which I believe is insensible.
As for Forest constitutionally enshrining a position against raiding/griefing as a region, I believe this again for the many times iterated reasons would be a violation of Forest's historic neutrality. What exactly would it mean for Forest the region to recognize this position you may ask. I think it would be officially taking a stance on the issue. While we all have our own opinions on raiding/griefing, I think we many of us share the opinion that we are not interested in being involved in all the drama of gameplay, and I think taking a stance as a region would pull us in that direction. There is no sense in going in that direction as a region, unless we are now interested in acting on such a stance and pursuing military gameplay as a defender/independent/whathaveyou, which I don't think would be in line with the culture this region has built up and again, I don't think we are interested in such gameplay and the drama that comes with it.
Of any stance here on changing our Constitution, I am most permitting of a recognition of our community's general position against raiding/griefing, but I am still opposed to this. I think a recognition of a general community consensus like this is not as strong of a position as it being our regional position so I don't think it would inherently violate our region's historic neutrality, but again I think it is an unnecessary step that would pull us towards involvement in gameplay drama, and I would also wonder what the sense in even making such a change would be. We can absolutely hold our stance as being against raiding/griefing, and that can be recognized as a community, but I don't think we need to or should recognize this as part of our Constitution.
That is a lot of text so to provide a quick tl;dr, I broadly speaking don't support raiding except in some circumstances, I am very strongly opposed to changing our Constitution to reflect any regional position or policy against raiding/griefing as it has a number of bad implications, pulls us towards gameplay drama, and is unnecessary, and we would be better to just recognize our positions as a community rather than in our Constitution.
Also, as a quick clarification for this discussion about Constitutional amendments since A&K and Jutsa have brought it up, I would believe any call for an amendment to our Constitution would have to be paired with the actual amendment text that has been approved by Ruinenlust in order to actually be called for, so don't worry about inadvertently calling for an amendment to our Constitution. If there is interest in that it would have to be more deliberate with a bit more notice to the Head of State and Head of Government.
«12. . .2,6412,6422,6432,6442,6452,6462,647. . .2,6522,653»
Advertisement
