ForestBoard

Jutsa wrote:

I've double posted a couple times. I have been shamed, defamed and maimed because of it, but I will likely do it again some day.

So we've got a severe criminal offender in the team? Wow, just wow.

I just quickly want to comment on the current SC vote. It’s overwhelmingly against condemning Thaecia, which is not surprising, considering this bill was written by a “disgruntled far-right player”, according to a Thaecian native. What’s more funny, however, is that seeing how the bill was obviously going to fail, the WAD of Thaecia actually voted for the condemnation of their own region.

I for one think this is a marvelous strategy, and should our esteemed necromancer pirate lord choose to do so, I believe it would be an excellent strategy to confuse any raiders, and/or unsavory double-posting repeat criminal offenders whose names start with Jut- and end with -sa.

Jutsa wrote:

I've double posted a couple times. I have been shamed, defamed and maimed because of it, but I will likely do it again some day.

(Quadposted on his first day)
Tell ME about it

Chan island wrote:

*Steps on the podium in a full on press conference, full FK suit on*

Jutsa's sentence has been considered spent, and I believe in second chances. While it doesn't compare to Jutsa's heinous act of double posting, Chan Island has also been responsible for the destruction of entire continents via necromancy, piracy and cringe, so we believe that not everyone can be angels all the time.

No questions.

*gasp*
Cringe?
I am disgusted,
piracy is good when you steal from the rich(only the greedy ones tho)
and I sometimes do necro too, so magic buddies?

Middle Barael wrote:

I just quickly want to comment on the current SC vote. It’s overwhelmingly against condemning Thaecia, which is not surprising, considering this bill was written by a “disgruntled far-right player”, according to a Thaecian native. What’s more funny, however, is that seeing how the bill was obviously going to fail, the WAD of Thaecia actually voted for the condemnation of their own region.

I for one think this is a marvelous strategy, and should our esteemed necromancer pirate lord choose to do so, I believe it would be an excellent strategy to confuse any raiders, and/or unsavory double-posting repeat criminal offenders whose names start with Jut- and end with -sa.

Why did today's posts make me laugh so much?
Anyways I had never seen WA agree on something so much yet.
EDIT: Where is the LQW Barael?
Don't wanna stress you out but it's been 46 days...
EDIT2:
I'll make my own (Unofficial) LQW!
Kepler asks!:
What's the inspiration for your nation?

anything i have to perpetuate the collective narcissism of the human species to play i'm really not that interested.

but i would like to wander around in the kind of world we could all wander around in if we didn't.

the future is never as safely far away as anyone imagines it to be. doesn't matter how much we love or hate change, it happens just the same,
and on its own terms and at its own pace. our priorities do bring it about, in ways that owe nothing to what any of us might wish to assume.

the dreams that happen when i close my eyes are what inspire cameroi, though the name came from a writer of off the wall horror humor, or that's probably how most people read it, who went by the name of lafferty. whose work i found, oddly inspiring. though not to create humor horror, but by the looseness of what is imaginably possible.

Bele Levy Epies wrote:

Welcome bank!

also sorry again for that lunar bele levy epies fiasco

Difinbelk wrote:

MSR has officially CTEd as of just under 2 hours ago

Hopefully MSR returns soon; they will be missed.

I'd also like to point out that Brellach has ceased to exist. They were founded back in 2007, and were one of our longest-standing members. I hope that they are okay, and that they return soon.

It's always kind of troubling to me when people vanish. :-(

I want to bring everyone's attention to this proposed gameplay change that will, if implemented, have an enormous impact on both the wider NS world and Forest.

To summarise (you're welcome haha) regions will choose to become one of either a "Frontier" or a "Stronghold". In a Frontier region, the Delegate will be the only executive position (a Founder, if present, will be non-executive) and there will be a six-month influence decay like feeders (e.g. The North Pacific) have currently. Furthermore, 50% of newly-created nations will be "born" in Frontier regions instead of feeders. The idea is that Frontier regions will become hotbeds of conflict; they'll be protected only by WA endorsements, and there's an incentive to destroy other Frontier regions because the fewer of those that exist, the larger a proportion of the "Frontier 50%" will be founded in the remaining Frontier regions. The implementation of a Frontier designation also has wider benefits for the NS community as it dilutes the power of the GCRs - at present, a small number of regions have a disproportionate amount of power because (WA) nations spawn there, and Frontiers would mean this spawning is spread across a wider portion of the NS world, thereby reducing the power of GCR delegates.

Stronghold regions are almost identical to how UCRs work at the moment - the only real difference being that the Founder of a Stronghold will be able to appoint a Successor who will assume the Founder role if the current Founder CTEs. If a Successor has been selected, the Founder can also choose to abdicate so that the Founder-ship can be passed to someone else (the Successor) without the Founder having to CTE. The Successor-ship will be a Regional Officer position, so the individual in this role can be changed without affecting the Founder. The idea here is that regions not interested in the r/d part of the game have an extra level of security, frustrating the efforts of r/d players who attack peaceful regions that have other, non-r/d priorities and making the r/d side of the game more consensual.

A key part of this proposal is the ability of Founderless regions to appoint a new Founder - something that has been missing from the table since NS began. Looking at the current iteration of the proposal, the Executive Delegate of a Founderless Stronghold region would have to switch the region to a Frontier (a password can be implemented during this time which would both protect the region's borders and prevent new nations from founding in the region), then switch back to a Stronghold; the transition back to Stronghold automatically makes the Executive Delegate become the Founder, and they are then free to appoint a Successor (or not) and a new Delegate can be selected. This will, apparently, come with a considerable influence cost for the Delegate. The flipside is that a Founder doesn't need influence to protect their region.

It's clear that if the above was to be implemented (and that seems likely at this stage), it would have a huge impact on Forest in a few different ways. For one, it would provide a path for us to choose a new Founder without having to attempt a messy refounding which would vastly improve regional stability. The Successor position would also prevent us from facing the prospect of a Founderless Forest in the future and would allow the Founder to step down rather than CTEing if they were no longer interested in the role. It's true, though, that this kind of change would require radical changes to our Constitution and would raise challenging questions about how a Founder or Successor should be chosen, whether we should replace Err as our Founder and so on.

Roless wrote:

If we were to replace Err, there would likely still be some mention of them on the region page, or if not, the region history page.

Whatever happens, I know that nothing can erase the 14 years Err spent contributing to this region. New Founder or not.

Terrabod wrote:

snip

Holy fork. That would be quite a change, indeed! I, for one, would be very happy if there were a way for us to exempt ourselves from the whole raiding scene. That's not what we're about, and it would allow us to go back to when there were no endorsement caps, when we didn't have to worry about security, and when there was no real way for us to lose Forest because of some massive invasion.

Terrabod wrote:

this kind of change would require radical changes to our Constitution

Radical, yes, but also very targeted and limited. There would be no reason for this to affect, say, the article on embassies or amendments or anything. The article about the Founder ceasing to exist would have to be reworked (or maybe subsumed as a simple clause about the Successor), and there would have to be a new article created about the selection of the new Founder and how that would take place. It could also include a clause respective Errinundera's "eternal right" to be the Founder, such that if he returned and expressed interest, the current Founder would be obligated to name him as the Successor and then resign in order to reinstate Errin.

~~~~~

This is brand new to me, but if I understand it correctly, it seems like from a mechanics perspective, either the current Executive Delegate would have to do the switch and then name the one chosen to be Founder as Successor, and then resign to make them so, or else the one chosen would have to first become the Executive Delegate and then do the switch and switch-back, without then resigning to the Successor, because they'd already be the one whom the region selected. Assuming, of course, that the region wanted someone other than me to be the new Founder, which I would be fine with. (I'd also be fine with blowing through all of my influence to executive the changes, by the way, since I can't think of a more meritorious use of the influence!)

In short, I'd be thrilled to see us regain our impregnable status, and I'd be happy to facilitate that in whatever way the region wanted me to, whether by continuing in the new role, or by doing the work and then resigning to a successor, or by stepping aside altogether so that another could do the switch and switch-back themselves. I'm just happy to be here. :-)

Terrabod wrote:

-stuff-

Huh. It's probably because I wasn't around in early NS when changes to region function actually happened, but I never really considered the possibility that regions could change this much. That's actually pretty crazy.

I, along with I'd assume a good amount of Forest, would be a fan of reinstating a new "founder" (we could do an election, but I'd have no complaints appointing Ruinenlust), and becoming a Stronghold region, and not just because it's a better name than a UCR. In my opinion, a specialized region like Forest, regardless of how broad said specialization would be, works better as an opt-in than an opt-out experience, and the stability that comes with would be pretty great. The only downside would be less new people joining compared to Frontier region, but I don't think that will matter too much. People will end up where they feel they belong, and not having people assigned to Forest on creation hasn't been an issue thus far.

All that said, it's still a bit early to start seriously considering this stuff (as in changing the constitution and such), as all the information is still tentative, including (if I'm reading things correct) the idea itself, though I think there will be enough community support to bring about these changes. It may even be helpful to hold off on making a concrete decision for, say, 24 hours and putting it to a vote afterwards, being a tentative stronghold in the meantime to preserve the RMB or on the extreme off chance of getting sniped by raiders.

This past week has been full of great news. I received news that my graduation application had been approved, and now, after four years of schooling, I officially have an Associate Degree in Fire Science. To complement that, I received a phone call regarding an application I had mailed, but had put to the back of my mind. From this phone call, I now have an interview for a position on a local fire department as a volunteer. Wish me luck folks. Hopefully not long from now, this raccoon will be fighting fires...a trash can fire perhaps. :-)