ForestBoard

Belevia wrote:

Most people who control a large region already know how to do stuff.

Eurofounder hardly controls Europe.
He's a figurehead essentially, he only jumped in because the people who actually have power were being overwhelmed.

How is the forest doing on this wonderful day?

Anxious and Kevin wrote:

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.

Not what I was discussing, and they may not officially control it but they still keep the governor position.

Hello I am back yet again

Belevia wrote:

Power belonging to a person who doesn't know how to use it does not sound like a good idea.

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.

Great Lakes Municipalities wrote:

Hello I am back yet again

You get a pass on this one, but welcome back!

Edit:

Greater Morvonia wrote:

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.

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.

Mount Seymour wrote:

3. I do also agree with Uan, though, that "informal diplomatic relations" that involve off-site connections but not an embassy are probably unhelpful diplomatic bloat in the long term, and strike me somewhat as the influence of the norms of the Gameplay world into our practices. A lot of GP regions don't care much at all about on-site embassies, and count off-site relations not only as a separate thing, but a more important one. I don't think that's a necessary division for Forest -- the situations we have with TNP and JEFF are unique and necessary for those particular contexts -- so I'd caution against that kind of approach in general.

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...)

Belevia wrote:

Like I already said, calling raiding bullying happens very often and is very incorrect.

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.

Ruinenlust wrote:

a brilliant corker of an RMB post

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.

Ryepple wrote:

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.

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.