ForestBoard

Novian Republics wrote:

Somewhat impersonal rambling caused by me getting triggered by the above

Just wanted to point out that the two are not mutually exclusive and that the U.S. is indeed a democracy, though a representative democracy. Admittedly it may not feel like a democracy since it's the votes of the constituent states that really counts and not the votes of the individual citizens and thus the representative part is quite far removed. One shouldn't forget (not that you have) that the U.S. is essentially a union of [somewhat] sovereign states and thus the affair of electing a president is not the same as a single nation electing a president but more akin to several nations appointing a president for their union where they happen to somewhat take into account popular opinion in their individual states. Because of this, people may feel like they're not being represented, but they are, just not at the level they may want to. To further clarify, during countrywide elections, people are more treated like citizens of the individual states than citizens of a single unitary nation. So any comparison that compares the U.S. electoral systems as if it was a singular nation (which it's not) to the electoral systems of any unitary nation that is a representative democracy becomes kind of moot. Thus, for the U.S. to truly be a nation of equals, it may need to change so it prioritises the rights of citizens as if they were citizens of a single nation, instead of prioritising state/union rights as it more or less does now (in elections at least).

That’s my problem. It’s really the state who votes via electors, not the voters themselves. Sure, the electors usually vote according to the wishes of the people (except for faithless electors), but due to them not being exact proportions (which would be impossible without fractions), they must be rounded, cutting out tons of votes, and also making rural votes worth more than urban votes. To me, it should be irrelevant if California gets more votes than Wyoming, what should matter is that if 10% of people vote for a party, then exactly 10% if the HR goes to them, even if those 10% lose every single district-wide election for an HR seat.

Kinectia wrote:

The Wikipedia dilemma is my favorite suggestion.

Some among us are experienced researchers and writers with old-school training and proper grammar. Some of us are still catering to the authorities who value regurgitation of lectures and assigned texts over thoughtful responses, and call that education. All of us are living in this time of surreality and dismal leadership and trying to make some sense of it.

When we take the time to research and write, we all turn to the internet and are immediately inundated with crap. Wikipedia always comes up, but rarely satisfies. The best sources all seem to be hidden from us, either through obscurity or paywalls.

The bar has never been lower for contributing to meaningful discussions, but by the time we dig up credible verification the subject has been overrun by fake news, memes, and other mob opinion factories. How can we expect to create real democracy when reliable sources are being drowned out by static?

I have always actually supported the existence of Wikipedia, within reason. As much as there is the chance that the info is false, there is that chance with practically everything. Almost any website you read, and even some books, can have info that is wrong. The thing with Wikipedia is that it cites its information, making it a good source for reference sources, and also helping you to figure out what might be wrong.

In addition, it is the only free, mainstream, multi-lingual (and I mean like hyper-multi-lingual), online encyclopedia with that many pages, enabling almost anyone to use it.

In short, I believe that like anything else, you must use your own judgement to figure out if it is right, but Wikipedia’s vault of information and the fact that anyone can access it outweighs that liability

McClandia Doge 2 wrote:

I am going to be hosting a little nationstates challenge. So. Things you need to do to participate in my challenge. 1. Create a puppet nation. 2. Telegram me your puppets username and your main nations username so I know who is in my challenge and I will let your puppet into my region. Region is called The Forest Olympics. I will let in 15 nations, not including me. Each day I will pick a world census category every day or maybe a couple times every day. The lowest 2 ranking participants will then battle using the challenge feature. The participant who loses the challenge will be kicked from the region and be eliminated from the competition. You may answer issues for your puppet region that you have created. Hope to see a lot of you there!!!!!!!!

As long as I am allowed to as Diplomatic Root (please let me, this sounds really fun), I am going to use my puppet Mowte, but I'm worried I'll lose my influence here. Currently they are at over 50, and I don't want to lose it, as I'd like a place on the map. Octopus islands, can you guarantee that Mowte gets a place on the map? I sent you the form and currently they have more than the 50 influence needed to be on the map, but I might lose it if I participate, so please guarantee that it'll get on the map.

Mcclandia doge 1 wrote:

U dont have to leave this region. Just create a new puppet and telegram me the puppet username so i can put you on as a contestent. Easy as pie just create a new puppet and move it to The Forest Olympics but first tell me ur puppets username. A new puppet. That you just created. By telegram me i mean telegram McClandia Doge 2

I know, I just really don’t want another puppet. If I have to, I’ll use a new one, but I’d really prefer just to move Mowte there briefly as long as I am guaranteed that Mowte will still get its place on the map, since it has over 50 influence, but it might lose it if it moves.

Maybe could you make it a forum topic? Like in the game forum, not our RMB or our offsite forum.

Eco-empire wrote:

There are also some templates that you can use to make your factbook, like this one. It was the one that I used to make mine, and it saves you much time.

i was looking for that thread on the forum! i remember seeing at the top and the page before, and pretty much everyone used it/still use it. is there any reason why its not there any more or do i just misremember it being there after i found it through the link that serves as the credit for using the template?

Ownzone wrote:

I admire your creativity but considering the whole Pokémon-event just finished and it received mixed criticism I do not see this gaining much momentum......

Yeah i know... I did post the advertisment thing on The Embassy so it might pick up from there idk

This month's environmental issue, product life cycle analysis, is of particular interest to me. As an ambassador I usually just make a friendly introduction and post the link, but in this case I would like to really encourage our allies to participate in the discussion. It's an enormous topic though, and after reading the cited references I am even more overwhelmed by all the thoughts that come to mind. The basic idea of creating a visual diagram is clear enough but I can't think of any way to approach that without oversimplifying, particularly because I'm inclined to want to also show the impact of workers involved, as well as the packaging and shipping. Maybe I'm just overthinking it, but I'd appreciate some guidance that I can pass on. Turbeaux could you maybe be more specific, or provide an example of what you have in mind?

Octopus islands wrote:

Hello guys, been having a bit of a dillema. Gandenia asked for a main territory that is inland on the map, along with a small island that is somewhat far away from the main nation.

What do y'all think I should do to show that the island is posessed by Gandenia? Should I add some sort of line? Or write the nation name twice? Or just never add the island (I wouldn't want to do this though). Mount Seymour, I know you have quite the history with the map. Do you have any suggestions?

Gandenia is my brother’s nation. I’d suggest just writing something like Gandenia (Territory) or something, like what you did with Ordand and Paplia’s territories in the new world. Or maybe just write Gan. or SAR (South Altan Resistance, which later became Gandenia)

Novian Republics wrote:

Somewhat impersonal rambling caused by me getting triggered by the above

Just wanted to point out that the two are not mutually exclusive and that the U.S. is indeed a democracy, though a representative democracy. Admittedly it may not feel like a democracy since it's the votes of the constituent states that really counts and not the votes of the individual citizens and thus the representative part is quite far removed. One shouldn't forget (not that you have) that the U.S. is essentially a union of [somewhat] sovereign states and thus the affair of electing a president is not the same as a single nation electing a president but more akin to several nations appointing a president for their union where they happen to somewhat take into account popular opinion in their individual states. Because of this, people may feel like they're not being represented, but they are, just not at the level they may want to. To further clarify, during countrywide elections, people are more treated like citizens of the individual states than citizens of a single unitary nation. So any comparison that compares the U.S. electoral systems as if it was a singular nation (which it's not) to the electoral systems of any unitary nation that is a representative democracy becomes kind of moot. Thus, for the U.S. to truly be a nation of equals, it may need to change so it prioritises the rights of citizens as if they were citizens of a single nation, instead of prioritising state/union rights as it more or less does now (in elections at least).

Middle Barael wrote:

That’s my problem. It’s really the state who votes via electors, not the voters themselves. Sure, the electors usually vote according to the wishes of the people (except for faithless electors), but due to them not being exact proportions (which would be impossible without fractions), they must be rounded, cutting out tons of votes, and also making rural votes worth more than urban votes. To me, it should be irrelevant if California gets more votes than Wyoming, what should matter is that if 10% of people vote for a party, then exactly 10% if the HR goes to them, even if those 10% lose every single district-wide election for an HR seat.

I agree with everything here, specifically where it's about the state itself rather than the people that decides the votes. Even when it is "proportional", the reality is just that there are those votes that are actually ignored or given greater weight due to fractions and rounding and whatnot. Again, I blame it on the fact that America "outgrew" the system by physically becoming too large.

Mowte wrote:

This is why I think we just should use the popular vote, since 1 vote = 1 vote, no matter where you are (except in DC and the territories, although they too should get to vote in the general election). Sure, the individual state may have less votes than another, but in the end, all votes are exactly equal, and urban vs rural is equal-ish and democrat vs Republican is equal-ish

I completely agree here with Mowte votes mean votes not because a person has higher power means their vote could count as two votes we are all equal here (Or I just like to say that). Yeah urban vs rural sure urban cities and towns get more votes but that doesnt mean rural places votes just dont count at all. Maybe the people telling who won the election likes Democratics more means hes not just gonna sabotage the Republicans right? (Right???? Maybe he will. Maybe he already did!). But I think all votes should be counted equally even if some people are more higher ranking.

{Edit} How do you find out how much influence you have? I know where it says what I am like sprat or contender or squire but where does it say how much I have?

Kinectia wrote:

This month's environmental issue, product life cycle analysis, is of particular interest to me. As an ambassador I usually just make a friendly introduction and post the link, but in this case I would like to really encourage our allies to participate in the discussion. It's an enormous topic though, and after reading the cited references I am even more overwhelmed by all the thoughts that come to mind. The basic idea of creating a visual diagram is clear enough but I can't think of any way to approach that without oversimplifying, particularly because I'm inclined to want to also show the impact of workers involved, as well as the packaging and shipping. Maybe I'm just overthinking it, but I'd appreciate some guidance that I can pass on. Turbeaux could you maybe be more specific, or provide an example of what you have in mind?

The visual diagram suggestion is for the purpose of outlining. You could treat labor practices as an input and look at them again on the recycling end of life outcome (if the product that you choose is recyclable).

A problem that I have been running into is fact-checking corporate claims. There is definitely a huge profit motive in marketing a product as something that does not destroy the environment, lead to human misery, or put money into resource extraction practices that fund criminal activities/violent conflicts. I have found that Greenpeace rates tech companies but they are largely taking corporate reports at face value and do not get into human rights issues. I wish that there was more third-party oversight in that business. There are some great organizations that only offer certain prestigious titles to food products that meet extremely rigorous environmental standards. I learned this from taking a look at palm oil (read about POFCAP).

Lura wrote:

What the heck. Are issues that are topical programmed to show up, or at least more often? I just got the issue 'Bigtopian Lives Matter' and a couple months back when the pandemic was near its height I got the issue 'An Acquired Taste' (I think that's what it was called).

On a related note, how long does it usually take to get an easter egg issue when you fulfill its conditions?

In Mowte, we contaminated the drinking water with chemicals to make everyone loyal and make it near impossible for them to rebel, and now we’ve had several issues relating to this. Coincidence? I think not