ForestBoard

So, Daarwyrth’s well-written high-quality resolution goes voted down by some certain WA clowns and this one of the current voting has been found legal? I mean, really?

Who would ever get surprised by one of them immediately popping in in defence thinking I’m willing to engage with this group. My message is for other nations who have eyes and brain to see and process. This all is being widely discussed behind the stage, between rational people who already laugh at the current so called GenSec team.

Einswenn wrote:

Who would ever get surprised by one of them immediately popping in in defence thinking I’m willing to engage with this group. My message is for other nations who have eyes and brain to see and process. This all is being widely discussed behind the stage, between rational people who already laugh at the current so called GenSec team.

The sentiment is very much appreciated as it also expresses in part how I feel and why that part of the game has lost its appeal to me, but I'd really hope this topic could be discussed without hostility, especially with Bananaistan, who I have seen to be open to productive discussion. And if that reason is not enough, then let us at least try to talk to one another without hostility because we're Forestians :)

Bananaistan wrote:

All I'm seeing here is personalised criticism ("... certain WA clowns ..." and "rational people who already laugh at the current so called GenSec team") along with criticism for posting on this RMB ("Who would ever get surprised by one of them immediately popping in in defence thinking I’m willing to engage with this group") for correctly applying the rules for GA proposals from someone who, as far as I can see, has never been a GA player and has the sum total of zero posts in the GA forum. Neither criticism bothers me greatly which is why my initial two posts were simply asking what is supposed to be illegal about the current at vote resolution. Which still hasn't been pointed out btw.

My main gripe with the ruling on Territorial Transitions was that Sierra Lyricalia initially said there seemed to be no rule that covered the supposed illegality that Imperium Anglorum spoke of. "Maybe, just maybe, under game mechanics" was what Sierra stated, but there's still no explanation what exactly was ruled illegal in the proposal itself. I am sure that the ruling sounds logical and reasonable to the GenSec itself, but because there is no clear explanation anywhere it leaves a very bad taste behind as there is no justification given to the outside world. I don't presume to speak for Einswenn, but I think that is part of the frustration that is felt surrounding IA's challenge and the subsequent ruling.

At Bananaistan: doesn't a GA proposal have to mandate something? Is that covered in this case by "reserving" the choice whether or not to legalize, decriminalize, etc. various drugs to each nation? And do those regulations not currently fall under each nation's jurisdiction?

Bananaistan wrote:

Sections b and c are valid operative clauses under the Optionality rule which permits a mild strength proposal to only have recommendations.

Oh, I didn't know that. Is there a place where the different strength levels of proposals are discussed? It goes mild, moderate (?), and strong?

I've thought that a proposal which needed to "mandate" something could say that the text of the proposal must be read aloud to each nation's legislative body or legislative equivalent, lol.

Daarwyrth wrote:

My main gripe with the ruling on Territorial Transitions was that Sierra Lyricalia initially said there seemed to be no rule that covered the supposed illegality that Imperium Anglorum spoke of. "Maybe, just maybe, under game mechanics" was what Sierra stated, but there's still no explanation what exactly was ruled illegal in the proposal itself. I am sure that the ruling sounds logical and reasonable to the GenSec itself, but because there is no clear explanation anywhere it leaves a very bad taste behind as there is no justification given to the outside world. I don't presume to speak for Einswenn, but I think that is part of the frustration that is felt surrounding IA's challenge and the subsequent ruling.

A formal opinion will be released on this. I appreciate the delay is frustrating from an author's POV but it's necessary to allow each member of GenSec contribute if they wish.

Terrabod wrote:

[Incompetence story]

Morals of single individuals should not be the reason of not providing a service. The question is: is the pharmacist the owner of that company? I mean, in this case they’d have quite convenient justification like “my pharmacy doesn’t support teens doing these things”. Yes, iffy, but still reasoning. But if the pharmacist is just an employee then they have to do their job, not preaching or commenting on customer’s order. Take the payment, hand the pills, smile, say goodbye. One can condemn this person after their shift with someone unrelated to the event.

In other words, company’s policy > individual policy of an employee. If the latter disagrees with the former, it’s not a slavery form of business: the exit door is always open.

Terrabod wrote:

-snip-

Your job is to give people the pills they ask for. Not to spout your own flawed morals. The morning after pill should be given to people at age 17 and younger without any comments. It's as simple as that. You chose a profession where you run the risk of doing things against your personal beliefs. But, I can almost guarantee, that at 17, that pharmacist went to her own pharmacy to purchase morning after pills.

Now, it terms of sex ed, especially sex ed in the USA, it is quite flawed. Teaching abstinence-only is proven to be ineffective. Not teaching about contraceptives is proven to be ineffective. Not teaching people about how to engage in safe and consensual sex is proven to be ineffective. Teach properly and things get better.

Terrabod wrote:

I read a news article the other day about a pharmacist who refused to give a 17-year-old the morning after pill, saying it would "give her the wrong ideas". She had to travel to a different pharmacy, who gave her the pill without fuss.

I realise that for some people this is actually a really contentious issue, so I wanted to hear what you folks think about it. It seems obvious to me that the pharmacist's comments were wholly inappropriate - it was the first time the 17-year-old had ever used the morning after pill, and she only needed it because her regular contraceptive failed (the condom broke). Seems to me like a case of a teenager making responsible choices about her health and finding herself on the receiving end of moralistic comments; I think it's imperative young people aren't afraid to access contraceptives because of a fear of being shamed by the dispenser.

Of course, the more controversial issue here is the pharmacist refusing to provide a customer with an important service on moral grounds. Should a professional be able to make moral choices for other people in this way? If I got a job in McDonald's, would it be acceptable for me to serve people a McSalad instead of the requested quarter pounder because I'm vegan? At the very least, it's clear to me that the pharmacist should have asked a colleague to deal with the request instead of forcing the customer to find a different pharmacy - in my view, any barrier to contraceptives is one too many and it's important to realise that the efficacy of the morning after pill is reduced the longer you wait to take it. There's some irony in the fact that by denying this service the pharmacist's actions could have resulted in the customer getting an abortion. Then there's the part of me that thinks if you're going to pass the request on to your colleague, you're essentially handing the pill to the customer anyway.

Also, my understanding is that the morning after pill is a method for preventing pregnancy, not a form of abortion. The hormones in the pill keep the eggs in the ovaries so they can't meet up with any little spermies and also thicken the cervical mucus which again blocks the sperm from meeting any eggs. It's a common misconception that the morning after pill keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the lining of the uterus. If keeping sperm and egg separate is so wrong, how are condoms more ethical? Both do the same thing but in different ways. I'd say you can object to all such contraceptives or object to none - yet most people who object to the morning after pill are fine with condoms and other such contraceptives. Does this stem from misunderstanding? Is this another example of the failures of sex ed?

Thoughts?

For me it isn't so much a moral issue as a case a pharmacist not doing his job! Contraception is normal and prevents unwanted pregnancies. Some folks seem to get all het up about other people having sex. I wonder if that pharmacist thinks that he/she was delivered by a stork?

Nation of ecologists wrote:

Hey Einswenn, I noticed that Russia was holding legislative elections today (well, over a span of 2 days given the size of the country) and I was curious if you voted. I know that there isn't much reason to because United Russia will basically always be in power as long as Putin is alive, but I was still curious if you ended up voting anyways.

It frankly surprises me that NationStates is accessible, given the state of freedom of speech and information in the Russian Federation.

Nation of ecologists wrote:

Hey Einswenn, I noticed that Russia was holding legislative elections today (well, over a span of 2 days given the size of the country) and I was curious if you voted. I know that there isn't much reason to because United Russia will basically always be in power as long as Putin is alive, but I was still curious if you ended up voting anyways.

It actually was for 3 days (Friday to Sunday) and I voted thanks to that because I’ve been working the entire weekend. Even though a lot of people and professions were given a day-off/longer lunch break at their workplaces, mine doesn’t include such privilege. So, it was quite useful timing of voting, have to admit that.

However, Russia is that kind of country where elections are just for entertainment. Attendance percentage is low and the result is clear. You may not meet any single person in life who’d [openly] vote for Putin or his United Russia party but it always turns out they have an extreme majority of votes. The only difference this time is that United Russia has just 48.5% of votes at the moment with 72% of total votes counted so far. In previous time they’d already have over 80% rigged votes. The political technologists started to learn from the other world that you don’t have to have 90%+ votes to win and having 51% is already “convincing” enough plus creates a better illusion of democracy. Belarus’ president has yet to learn this too.

It’s not the first year when the election office “tries” to make the process transparent. They put cameras on literally every voting venue and streamed it online so anyone can access the cameras any time. And despite this there were hundreds of violations from obvious faking the image on screens (like putting printed photo of empty room in front of camera (insanely stupid and childish, got revealed immediately)) to fake groups voters who appear in several different voting venues while citizens are attached to their one and only venue by home address. All these reports go openly to the media, and those few of free independent journals are yelling about it but who cares? Putin has been creating this system step by step ever since the mass protests back in 2011/2012 when he realised people don’t want him to stay. From “innocent” formation of Russian Guard (Rosgvardia) whose task is literally to physically destroy any protest activity and defend the system to nationwide ban of independent media, bloggers and even to fining Twitter and Google/YouTube for millions $ for not deleting opposition content. The current peak is last summer’s constitutional “amendments” that restrict some civil rights again, removes responsibility under international laws and courts, and lets Putin stay in power until he practically dies one day. With all the fuss, he’s a smart strategist using impressive resources to build his own playground and people literally cannot do anything with it. I mean, literally no way left to stop him now.

So, the latest tyrannical move was so called “foreign agents” law which labels anyone publicly disagreeing with current system as foreign agent. It applies mostly to media and politicians but in fact can apply for regular citizens with active political stance as well. The only democratic party of Russia (named Yabloko, or Apple) has been dying slowly because Putin does his best to strangle them. No wonder they’re now the only party in the ballot who have additional label “this party has foreign agents members or members affiliated with such”. For politically apathetic people who still go and vote such label would be a red signal to avoid voting for without even reading their programme and history. It’s literally the only party with clear plan and ideology (apart from low quality nationalistic United Russia) and is the only pro-civil rights and pro-green party in this country.

*Also now would you like this: several men from other pro-Putin parties have legally changed their first and second names and photoshopped their promo photos too look like one of the strongest candidates from this opposition party? It’s so insane and unbelievable that went viral in social media and press: https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-critics-seek-fringe-election-wins-amid-clones-bribes-and-blackouts/

Raccoon Creek wrote:

It frankly surprises me that NationStates is accessible, given the state of freedom of speech and information in the Russian Federation.

I assume it’s because this site is not really popular in this country. If opposition figures would say its name somewhere publicly it’d attract suppressive forces’ attention. Besides, it’s mostly English-spoken platform and it’s not so widespread language in Russia. If only those dissidents created Russian-spoken regions on NS and used it as a weapon against the regime then consider NS banned within Russian borders. I hope this won’t happen though because I don’t want to use dozens of VPN services to access the game for fun.