«12. . .2,3662,3672,3682,3692,3702,3712,372. . .2,6472,648»
I made adultery a crime punishable by a good old stoning and no stats changed... am I already at the deep end? No redemption for West Barack and East Obama? 😦
Siornor, Ruinenlust, Northern Wood, Nation of ecologists, and 1 otherGreat julunaphra
I'm not all that passionate about the subject, but from my point of view, Lily seem to be among the better/nicer of the orgs that raid. They work with defenders quite a bit, in fact, and from what I can tell, the main folks involved are also high up in the defending scene. Much of the raiding I see them do are against inactive little regions with dead founders. They've had more high profile stuff, too, but I've come to view most of their activity as relatively benign. For instance, I rarely come across their name among the orgs bragging about their involvement in a major, distasteful raid. I view them as being in, more or less, the same vague category as TNP's military, at this point. Nothing like TBH or BoM.
All of that is just to say, I suppose, I take issue with the use of the term "hideous" :P
Siornor, Mount Seymour, Ruinenlust, Nation of ecologists, and 2 othersPhillip isle, and Great julunaphra
either case is equally silly to believing they owe anything to what any of us think we know about them.
if they couldn't exist without our doing so, would they be much much of a god or gods?
at any rate, there is nothing to stop the existence of gods totally outside of any known theology and with no relation to it.
nor of course for that matter, to require them. (unless they should feel like choosing to exist, which seems to me, how most likely they would).
Ruinenlust, Northern Wood, and Great julunaphra
Happy Summer Solstice, everyone! We are now at the maximum day length, for those in the Northern Hemisphere. And in just 26 weeks, we'll be back at the Winter Solstice. With every year that passes, time seems to accelerate for me. I swear that I was in kindergarten for like a decade. But now, weeks melt away in a few days and months are like two weeks.
Cameroi, Einswenn, Siornor, Frieden-und Freudenland, and 10 othersMount Seymour, Window Land, The void territories, Northern Wood, Nation of ecologists, York Zionia, Santichushari, Station 8, Great julunaphra, and Relwynia
The proposal is authored by a member of The Black Hawks, and has votes in favour from TCB, Osiris, and Japan's invading delegate, all with strong connections to TBH and BoM, so I'm a bit wary of this one, but the text looks okay to me so I won't mind if it passes.
Mount Seymour, Ruinenlust, Northern Wood, and Great julunaphra
Yay! I love summertime!!! I just don’t love the fact that mosquitoes will bite me and it will be humid. (Humidity combined with heat and cloudiness makes me itchy and I don’t like being itchy from being outside. :P) I am so happy!!! :D
Siornor, Ruinenlust, Northern Wood, West Barack and East Obama, and 1 otherGreat julunaphra
Happy summer solstice!
Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Northern Wood, York Zionia, and 2 othersWest Barack and East Obama, and Great julunaphra
Lily is actually a pretty cool raider org - or perhaps more accurately, a lot of the people associated with Lily are pretty cool. They aren't very destructive, they're pretty chill, and they aren't massive ideologues or egotists, which I see all as pretty big pluses. From a pragmatic point of view, if some raider orgs are going to get a shiny badge (which they are), I'd rather it be people like Lily than some of the other ones out there.
Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Phillip isle, Dacay, and 1 otherGreat julunaphra
Oh yeah, this one easily gets my unwavering support. We have entered an age where condemning destructive behavior is no longer desirable and increasingly getting repealed, while condemnations themselves given to dedicated players and regions that have done IC bad things in an enjoyable way. I cannot think of too many more organizations more deserving of one in this day and age than them. :)
Ruinenlust, Dacay, and Great julunaphra
summer used to be my least favorite time of year, but now my old bones are getting to where they don't much care for winter either.
i didn't come here to play war, a came here to build worlds that do not require it.
i remember bringing mini-tanks to school in my pockets, but that was a thing for children.
Einswenn, Jutsa, Ruinenlust, and Great julunaphra
I'm against it. Even if some like having a "shiny badge", I think we should keep with the original meaning and award them to the genuine bad guys. If we allow TBH, etc, to cheapen it we are the losers.
Note also the implied compliments in the reolution - powerful military, exceptional speed, records broken, etc.
I urge everyone to vote against.
Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Roless, Nation of ecologists, and 2 othersPhillip isle, and Great julunaphra
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of keeping prominent condemnations for wrongdoings*, myself. Unfortunately, the modern SC powers at be aren't in so much agreement. (Although I do believe some of the condemnations that still exist for those who've done *ahem* DOS-level wrongdoings ought be removed.)
That said, I'd hardly find condemning Lily to be an example of "cheapening" it. We already have condemned many individuals, such as 
Noahs Second Country, 
Australian rePublic, etc. for genuine contributions and the like. Lily is imo a community that darn well deserves official recognition in some form; of course, having worked with many of their members ages ago, I'm clearly biased.
Still, they practice a pretty skilled level of raiding that is not remotely as destructive as a good few other sets of raiders. Given the current SC political climate, I'm genuinely surprised they're not so in favor of recognizing this and promoting better raiding practices overall.
Edit: Also, it's actually the exception and not the rule anymore for someone to not find a condemnation a badge of honor. ;p
Siornor, Ruinenlust, Noahs Second Country, Zerphen, and 4 othersNation of ecologists, Difinbelk, Phillip isle, and Great julunaphra
Well, the Great Trout Resurrection™️ is in progress1, if only it hadn't come w/ so many detriments to stats I like...
Between this and one other decision2 I took today, ig we're calling this a decentralist and (economically) Libertarian administration. Welp, sorry to all poor Difyn.3
1: https://ibb.co/VqDBXx1
2: https://ibb.co/72GRGwQ
3: nation=difinbelk/detail=trend/censusid=73
Jutsa, Ruinenlust, and Great julunaphra
I admittedly don't know a whole lot about Lily, I only see them sometimes on small regions whose founders CTEd. Just from the looks of it they seem like some fine people, and I don't have any strong reason to not support giving them a shiny badge. Ultimately we are just playing a political nation simulator game, so I think it's fine to reward people for what they have done even if it's bad and eggs them on to do more. They would do it anyways, I don't think it is a moral evil to recognize them for doing bad things.
I've always thought of it as a bit odd that people don't want to condemn bad regions for the bad things they've done in favor of condemning the bad people that do bad things instead, and then the bad people who do bad things also don't seem to get condemned because they are bad. Like are we just supposed to condemn good people who would rather be condemned than commended, and commend good people who want to be commended, without ever condemning the bad people for the bad things they've done? Why must we exist in this horrid purgatory where people consider a condemnation as strictly either a good or a bad thing? Why can't we just accept that condemnations can be a good thing or a bad thing sometimes?
Point is, I don't think Lily is morally repulsive, so I have no problem condemning them and giving them the shiny badge.
I remember looking through this resolution on the forum as it was being drafted. A lot of the reason this stuff was included was because other people encouraged the authors to add stuff about what makes Lily truly remarkable in their raiding and tagging compared to other raider orgs, and how the region is inherently bad. I don't think that changes anything about your reasoning for voting against this, but that is at least the reasoning for why that was included.
In my view, at least, I think of this as more reason to condemn them, especially with all of their contributions to that raider tech stuff I don't understand :P
Ruinenlust, Nation of ecologists, Dacay, and Great julunaphra
The Game's On!
24 Teams, 3 of which reside in Forest are taking part in the 2nd edition of the IFAU GreenCup. Day One was yesterday, today, 4 games will go live starting from 2 hours from now.
Thanks for your attention!
Einswenn, Sen adimen, and Great julunaphra
Aight... 20 days ago I made this: page=rmb/postid=47731082
Blastin heck I can't believe June is almost over already, goes to show what two weeks of absolute fatigue will do to ya. '>_>
Anyhow I still hadn't gotten too much feedback on this, but I have two versions present that I'd like to have word on. If there seems to be general apathy, I'll go with the quantitative one (B) over the qualitative one (A) as a safeguard against potential government issues down the road. That said, hopefully the qualitative version is worded better; though if you prefer the old version as linked above, do let me know.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PRE-Draft of the "2022 Amendment Amendment" Version A
Summary:
This draft amendment to Article 9, Clause 9.1, Subclause 9.1.iii, shall modify the requirement, for non-executive Forestians to call an amendment to vote, from 25% of WA nations to a ballpark of "considerable interest".
Existing text of the target clause:
9.1 Amendments to the Constitution add to, delete from, or otherwise modify the Constitution. Amendments to the Constitution may be brought forward in three ways:
i. The Head of State may call for an amendment.
ii. The Forest Keeper may call for an amendment.
iii. 25% of the total number of WA nations in Forest may publicly call for an amendment within a two-week period on the RMB.
Proposed new text with changes underlined:
9.1 Amendments to the Constitution add to, delete from, or otherwise modify the Constitution. Amendments to the Constitution may be brought forward in three ways:
i. The Head of State may call for an amendment.
ii. The Forest Keeper may call for an amendment.
iii. An amendment may be called if there is considerable interest from the Forest community, as determined by the regional government.
Anticipated impact of changes:
- The voting threshold will at present be significantly lowered so members will be able to realistically call a constitutional amendment to vote without having to rely on the Forest Keeper or Head of State to like it;
- Greater discretion will be given to both Forestians and Executive Officers whether an amendment reaches reasonable interest, rather than relying on a fixed number;
- More flexibility will be given so, should the region change population size or WA member density, there will no longer be an arbitrarily high or low voter threshold;
- Non-WA members may also participate;
- Slightly increased potential for conflict as the threshold will be subjective, although this should be remedied through public opinion on the existing government's ability to discern effectively.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PRE-Draft of the "2022 Amendment Amendment" Version B
Summary:
This draft amendment to Article 9, Clause 9.1, Subclause 9.1.iii, shall modify the requirement, for non-executive Forestians to call an amendment to vote, from 25% of WA nations to 5% or 5 total, whichever being higher.
Existing text of the target clause:
9.1 Amendments to the Constitution add to, delete from, or otherwise modify the Constitution. Amendments to the Constitution may be brought forward in three ways:
i. The Head of State may call for an amendment.
ii. The Forest Keeper may call for an amendment.
iii. 25% of the total number of WA nations in Forest may publicly call for an amendment within a two-week period on the RMB.
Proposed new text with changes underlined:
9.1 Amendments to the Constitution add to, delete from, or otherwise modify the Constitution. Amendments to the Constitution may be brought forward in three ways:
i. The Head of State may call for an amendment.
ii. The Forest Keeper may call for an amendment.
iii. Either five resident nations or 5% of resident nations, whichever is numerically greater, may publicly call for an amendment on the RMB.
Anticipated impact of changes:
- The voting threshold will at present be significantly lowered so members will be able to realistically call a constitutional amendment to vote without having to rely on the Forest Keeper or Head of State to like it;
- A preventative measure to ensure a very active minority doesn't have total control should the region's population shrink substantially;
- Retains a concrete quantitative minimum so there is no ambiguity or question of executive judgement;
- Non-WA members may also participate
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let me know which you like most! I'm somewhat hoping to get one of these (Again, I'll push Option B to be safe if there's not much preference for A) to vote soon - ideally to get this passed before July hits, but we'll see. Like I said, I'ven't been feeling all that well lately - something I go through several times a year. But hey at least things aren't as insanely busy for me (although busy enough for me to be on-edge about not getting anything done :/)
EDIT: Or we could have both. See Option C here: page=rmb/postid=47945395
Siornor, Mount Seymour, Ruinenlust, Uan aa Boa, and 5 othersCanaltia, Zerphen, Nation of ecologists, Ardelark, and Great julunaphra
I don't like the hard quantitative requirements in Version B, but I do like the 5 nation minimum it has. I was thinking maybe the two versions could be combined, but I don't think that would be necessary since "considerable interest" would have the same effect, big region or small region. Of these two versions, I prefer Version A and I would vote in favor of that.
Jutsa, Ruinenlust, and Great julunaphra
Funnily enough I was thinking the exact opposite. I like the security of the quantitative reqs, but ya I think I'd agree w/ a "quantitative req or considerable interest" version.
Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Zerphen, and Great julunaphra
I could certainly try combining the two... o_O
I could either try writing up a version that has both... or, we could make it so there's both - i.e., something like this:
~~~~~
i. The Head of State may call for an amendment.
ii. The Forest Keeper may call for an amendment.
iii. Either five resident nations or 5% of resident nations, whichever is numerically greater, may publicly call for an amendment on the RMB.
iv. An amendment may be called if there is considerable interest from the Forest community, as determined by the regional government.
~~~~~
Now, in fairness, this could be considered a little excessive - and for sure I could theoretically try mixing the two ideas into one subclause - but, there's no law that says there have to be three ways of going about this. ;p
P.S. I can't be half-butted to make a full blasted draft of this especially for an idea this experimental xD But if it's a compromise that you lot might be comfortable with I'll be sure to call a draft with that in it to vote instead. Let me know if you have any other ideas or arguments against such a compromise, though.
Speaking of, iv (or Pre-Draft Version A ;p) would be sort-of moot, given the FK/delegate could just call to vote anything that seems to have gained traction, buuut it would at least symbolically give more weight to* other Forestians, including other officials, to weigh in on the matter. That's why personally I'd either go with version B or... idk, guess you could call this Version C for Compromise if you want, just to make sure we do have a solid upper threshold for the lowest threshold. :p
Siornor, Ruinenlust, The void territories, Zerphen, and 3 othersNation of ecologists, Phillip isle, and Great julunaphra
Oh yeah - sorry for the double post, but regarding the Lusitanian Games: The photography and flagmaker contest deadlines have been pushed back another whole week! If anyone couldn't make the photography contest this past week that they'll have a bit more time to do so ^-^
Dispatch if you're interested:
Is the camera rolling? Let's do this then!
Welcome to the First Edition of the Lusitanian Games (or Lusitaníadas in our oh so tongue-twisting Portuguese). In a never-seen-before attempt, Portugal, Europe, Forest and 10000 Islands came together to offer a fun and engaging time for all the NationStates multiverse: a cultural competition! Consisting of three seperate competitions - Writing, Photography and Flag Design - we hope these games may bring forth some peaceful banter and aid in the strengthening of bonds during such turbulent times. Without further ado, let the games begin!
How can I participate?
Regardless of your region, status in the WA, heck as long as you have a pulse you may join any of the three competitions we have in store for you!
But first, please read the rules below (click the images) and, when your project is finished, send it in the appropriate medium via telegram to each competition's judges.
Tournaments
Grito Corujense: desta vez é pessoal! by Piatinum bees
All the judges, for the English competition
Our Minister Alentejo and Algarve, for the Portuguese competition.
Black and White photos
Photos of national monuments and landmarks
Animal photos
Free category
Jury: Ofiussia (Portugal); The Union Empire (XKI); Logar (Europe)
Submissions:
-
For the English Competition:
For the Portuguese Competition:
The nations who wish to join must write a story regarding either an event or a simple story set within their NS countries. This part of the competition will be divided in two seperate sections: one for English-written stories.
Regarding the texts themselves, these must be written out in a dispatch in the respective language of the competition the writer wishes to join (they can submit up to 1 in each). All text formats are allowed (poetry, prose...) and there is no word limit. Plagiarism and hate speech will not be tolerated in a submission (though hateful topics may be explored in the narrative).
In the English competition a jury composed of players from different regions will give out four different thematic awards to the best texts: best scenery, best story progression, best character development and best plot;
As for the Portuguese one, a poll will be conducted in Portugal for its citizens to choose the best text out of the bunch.
Once finished, submissions must be sent via telegram in a dispatch to:
Text by Author | Scenario | Story Progression | Character Development | Plot |
7 🥈 | 9 🥇 | 8,3 🥇 | 7,7 🥇 | |
9 🥇 | 8,3 🥉 | 6,3 🥉 | 7,3 🥈 | |
7 🥈 | 8,6 🥈 | 7,3 🥈 | 7,3 🥈 | |
6 | 4,3 | 1 | 2,3 | |
5 | 3,7 | 2,3 | 2 |
Text by Author | # of Votes | Place |
4 | 1st 🥇 | |
3 | 2nd 🥈 | |
2 | 3rd 🥉 | |
2 | 3rd 🥉 | |
1 | 4th | |
Grito Corujense: desta vez é pessoal! by Piatinum bees | 0 | 5th |
Jury: Astartia (Portugal); Totaristan (Portugal); Uan aa Boa (Forest); Wille-Harlia (XKI)
You will be able to compete in 4 different categories, submitting up to 2 photos taken by you in each one:
Filters will be permited for the photos, but their impact on the quality of the pictures will be taken in account. Plagiarism won't be tolerated.
The 3 best pictures from each category will be chosen by a multirregional juri, to whom you must send your pictures with links (you might wanna use 
imgur) or in other available mediums that facilitate the jury's work.
- Photos of national monuments and landmarks
Contestant | Best Photo | Remaining Photos | Place |
|
| 1st 🥇 | |
| 2nd 🥈 | ||
| 3rd 🥉 |
Jury: Alentejo and Algarve (Portugal); Jutsa (Forest); Pilipinas and Malaya (Europe); Markanite (XKI)
The participants will be encouraged to submit one original design - and with absolute thematic freedom - with the following limitations:
- You can only use up to 4 colours and in this set of 4 you can only use one of the following {green, red, blue}. Coat of arms and others like it must abide by the same rules.
The submission of the flag design must be done in the same way as the photography one, sending the design to all the members of the jury, which will select the 3 best designs.
Flag | Contestant | Portuguese Judge's Score | Forest Judge's score | European Judge's Score | Islander Judge's Score | Average | Place |
 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 10 | 8.75 | 1st 🥇 | |
 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 8.25 | 2nd 🥈 | |
 | 7 | 10 | 6 | 6 | 7.25 | 3rd 🥉 | |
| 6 | 9 | 7 | 3 | 6.25 | 4th | |
 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 6.25 | 4th | |
 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 9 | 5.75 | 5th | |
 | 8 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6th | |
 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4.25 | 7th | |
| 5 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2.25 | 8th | |
 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 9th | |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | Disqualified |
Region | 🥇 | 🥈 | 🥉 | Total |
3 | 1 | 0 | 4 | |
1 | 4 | 1 | 6 | |
1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | |
0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Anything else?
Zerphen, Phillip isle, and Great julunaphra
The requirement for 5% of the region's population is simply untenable. Currently, that would require 18 nations to support it on the RMB. This not only would feel spammy, but it's also a large portion of historical turnout. Anything that goes through with that would be nearly impossible to stop (Though is Forest's specific case, that isn't really that bad of a thing). Furthermore, this just specifies resident nations, meaning a person with multiple nations in the region can affirm as many times as they have nations.
Changing it to resident WA nations alleviates this issue. Not only is that in line with how elections are normally handled, it also cuts down the required number of players to 5.75 at the time of writing.
Regardless, both the current proposal and my amendment to the amendment are lower bars than the current Constitution, which requires 28.75 WA nations at the time of writing.
Gameplay politics are ... pretty weird at the best of times. In some cases, condemnations are rewards to players who played the villain role well and who want it as a badge of honor. In other cases, it's for people who have done legitimately unpopular/bad things and don't want the badge. In that sense, it actually serves as a punishment for them. However, there is a third group who wants it as a badge of honor, but aren't as likeable - or are outright hated - and so SC regulars try to keep them from getting the "award".
Yeah, it's dumb and confusing, but that's just human interactions for ya.
Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Zerphen, and Great julunaphra
So a bit of a departure of the current discussion (full support btw 
Jutsa, good work. I prefer A, but no qualms with B), but I'm curious to hear if anyone else has thoughts on the Texas GOP platform. I'm not from the states, so I'm not too sure how this stuff works, so I guess I'm looking for assurance that we (as NATO countries) aren't about to get pulled into an American civil war, and also that the more draconian stuff in there won't be actionable. It's a 40 page pdf, so I'll give a quick rundown of the stuff I'm most concerned about. Brackets are the bullet point numbers, not the line numbers.
- Reducing Supreme court power (18) and executive order power (20)
- Having a state electoral college appoint all state officials (34)
- Becoming a theocracy? (31, 108, 205)
- Actual sucession? (23, 33, 37, 224)
- Making carbon not a pollutant (40) and repealing a ton of environmental regulations (42)
- No Covid restictions (67-69)
- Some kinda revenge hacking? This one's just kinda funny (74)
- Abolishing taxes that disproportionately affect the wealthy (82 a-c, 87, 90, 91, 94)
- Funding homeschooling (101) with no required curriculum (102, 113), except that sex ed is not allowed (105, "individual schools"), including abstinance only. Also Don't Say Gay 2: Electric Boogaloo (106, 124)
- Climate change is "challangeable" (112)
- Abolishing the Department of Education??? (117) and also welfare (136) and maybe CPS (173)
- Parents choosing if their children get proper medical treatment (107, 134, 152, 153, 163)
- Okay, 143-146, 207-209, 213, and 215 is just general homophobia and transphobia.
- Becoming a police state (175, 179, 180, 187)
- 198-201 just seems like a massive facism dogwhistle
- Reject international law (272-273)
And then Resolution 1 just talks about how Biden isn't a legitimate president. That seems very civil war-y to me.
The whole thing is also laced with the expected anti-abortion and pro-gun stuff, and there's a bunch of stuff that I can't comment on because I don't know what it means. Not American. Funnily enough, they do support Taiwan, so that's a point for them I guess (edit: I've just noticed some stuff about how Palestine shouldn't exist right above that, so I'm rescinding my point).
Isn't the Texas republican party a super influential political group? I'd be concerned if a mayoral candidate ran on some of these, let alone the elected state government. I sorta just want to hear others opinions, because I'm really hoping this isn't as big a deal as it seems to be. Because this seems like a threat to international stability from where I'm sitting.
Einswenn, Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Uan aa Boa, and 4 othersZerphen, Nation of ecologists, Brantanaria, and Great julunaphra
This is what stuck out to me. The GOP has officially become QAnon. Almost every single position in the platform is back to either fascist or secessionist rhetoric - sometimes both.
This is what Texas has been recently. Governor Abbott's executive order requiring all parents of trans children to be investigated for child abuse, and the Legislature's recent abortion bill are just further evidence of how far right authoritarian current Republicans are.
Absolutely. They are probably the best barometer for measuring the general sentiment of Republicans in the US. They say what the national GOP wants to say, but would be political suicide to. It's actually incredible how overt they are in their beliefs - no dog whistles required anymore, I guess.
Why is that allowed? Don't y'all have an amendment against unreasonable search and seizure? Like, I could maybe understand if it was, say, suicide stemming from untreated gender dysphoria or something, but even that is an overreach. If someone suggested investigating all parents of children with ADHD (which has some environmental influences actually indicitive of an unsafe home) for child abuse, they'd be laughed out of the room. I guess we're still running with the "transgenderism happens when the parents give their son a doll" nonsense.
Gonna be honest, that's maybe the last thing I wanted to hear. I was hoping it was just a half-dozen people that were put in charge of writing a document that should've been left to someone else.
Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Zerphen, Nation of ecologists, and 2 othersDifinbelk, and Great julunaphra
I'd make a counterargument and say that, on average, Texas republicans (and democrats) are more conservative than, say, New England republicans (and democrats). While they may be heavily influential in the US, they're also somewhat peculiar.
Still, I admit it's a little unnerving at times reading that platform. I don't know how much of it is actually actionable, but in all honesty, if any state were going to pull that stuff off, it'd probably be Texas.
Edit: Also worth noting that an official platform bulletin list =/= how real people will do things in practice. Some parts of it absolutely could (and will) be pushed for, but I'd be genuinely amazed if there was enough agreement to actually do most of it, much less secede (which imo wouldn't be much of a civil war anyway). Edit2: I actually used actually too many times. Alas.
Siornor, Ruinenlust, Canaltia, Zerphen, and 3 othersNation of ecologists, Difinbelk, and Great julunaphra
«12. . .2,3662,3672,3682,3692,3702,3712,372. . .2,6472,648»
Advertisement
