Forest

Difinbelk wrote:

Bipedal like Nick Wilde and every one of the Equestria Girls incarnations or am I misunderstanding that?

MLP bipedal like this: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-90-rSuGhids/WqVcG3sFo5I/AAAAAAAC1aE/p6FuXzluc1wk1JSreMXqW5LK4mPytxIVACHMYCw/s2000/DressupbyOrchidPony1520786407495.png
Foxes like this: https://www.deviantart.com/thanshuhai/art/A-Full-Cup-376208837

Let me tell ya. finding a good SFW on google for furry stuff that is accurate to what you trying to portray is hard.

Gorthias wrote:

MLP bipedal like this: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-90-rSuGhids/WqVcG3sFo5I/AAAAAAAC1aE/p6FuXzluc1wk1JSreMXqW5LK4mPytxIVACHMYCw/s2000/DressupbyOrchidPony1520786407495.png
Foxes like this: https://www.deviantart.com/thanshuhai/art/A-Full-Cup-376208837

Let me tell ya. finding a good SFW on google for furry stuff that is accurate to what you trying to portray is hard.

That’s funky, I like it.

rustles through bushes, hissing in the dark Forest

Where is civilization?!

I bacc

Hi bacc, I ate.

A little bit of news from Rakavo (you know, that little nation in the mid-north of the map bordering Einswenn, Eryndlynd, and Siornor), just to let you know that I am still here :)

Karkaiti Chancellor Sokti Deit murdered in his office
Kaansi Puonaksampe named interim Chancellor until elections

KAVOTTUGA | Karkaiti, Rakavo's largest State, has been in turmoil since yesterday morning, when a cleaning lady discovered the lifeless body of Chancellor of the Palace Sokti Deit in his office, a large knife firmly lodged in his back. The police were quickly alerted and are investigating the matter; few details about the crime have been shared with the press so far, which is typical for Deit's secretive way of ruling the State.
Deit was elected in 2019 following the surprise acceptance of the vote of no confidence against the then incumbent Chancellor of the Palace, the popular Uora Okaitinni. Okaitinni's removal from office had been suspicious and rumours circulated that the Party of the People’s Action (Parti Uustaan Ravottangai, PAR), the largest political party in the Palace of the Peoples (Karkaiti's Parliament) had been collectively bribed. After the authoritarian Sokti Deit was elected Chancellor of the Palace, he forbade further speculation about and protests against his predecessor's ousting, and in the years that followed, Karkaiti, one of the most liberal States of Rakavo, became significantly less free. The police received more prerogatives to maintain order on the streets, whereas crime rates in Karkaiti were among the lowest in Rakavo, and new fees for independent media were introduced, which lead to the bankruptcy of fourteen newspapers and five television channels already in 2020.

Kaansi Puonaksampe, currently Minister of Security in Deit's government, has been appointed as interim Chancellor until elections can take place. It is widely expected that Uora Okaitinni will try to be reelected as Chancellor and put an end to the authoritarian government of the last couple of years. Sokti Deit's twin brother Psoiba Deit, who held an emotional but aggressive speech to the press yesterday evening, claimed that his brother's murder was an attack on democracy in Karkaiti and Rakavo, and suggested that he would put forward himself as a candidate to succeed his brother.

Karkaiti's executive, known as the Chancellor of the Palace (Kanseleiri Maisappa), is an office comparable with that of President in other nations. The Chancellor is elected in two stages: the people cast their vote on all candidates who put themselves forward, after which parliament (the so called Palace of the Peoples (Maisampe Ravottangeettika), consisting of 205 members) elects one of the five candidates who obtained the most votes in the popular election. Complicating matter is that elections for the Palace of the Peoples should also take place this year (the ongoing term will end in June), and both elections are constitutionally required to take place at least five months apart from each other. As the election of the Palace of the Peoples will be due in June, it may take until November before Deit's successor can be elected.

Wandering Alien Scientist wrote:

rustles through bushes, hissing in the dark Forest

Where is civilization?!

it is in the mind. too many call it utopian.

it is where the dominance of aggressiveness is prevented, where the culture recognizes logic in the service of universal consideration, that is consideration for all things without limit, is the one and only alpha and omega of morality.
it isn't created by magic wands of ideology or belief. there are no exceptionalisms of either, nor of nations, genders, species, even worlds.
not in the context and sense of anything cameroi at any rate, would recognize as civilization.

Hi everyone! So I had a couple of quick questions that you may or may not care about, related to Official Business^TM

So I had gone through the constitution a few times (in no small part because I keep forgetting swathes of it here and there), and I noticed a few things that I thought might be interesting changes down the road, but wasn't sure if they'd be everyone's cup of tea. There are a few things, but since we've got... like, over four months to go over them, and this one thing is already a bit lengthy and peculiar enough on its own, I'll just bring up the one now and see what you guys think about it.

The thing I wanted to ask everyone about first is actually two similar clauses in the constitution, regarding the populace of Forest calling for either amendments or a Forest Keeper's removal from office. More specifically, Articles 5.1-iv and 9.1-iii. If you hadn't noticed them before, they're... kinda interesting, aren't they? xD

So, to briefly go over what they do: 9.1-iii allows for 25% of Forest's total WA population to call for a constitutional amendment (within 2 weeks) and bring it to vote (to which it may be vetoed by yours truly), while 5.1-iv allows for I (or any Forest Keeper) to be removed if a vote is called by 33% of Forest's total WA population within a one-week period (assuming it hasn't already happened before in the same term).

At present as this is written, this would mean that if any one or group of people who wanted to propose even a small change to the amendment or get an extremely-undesirable-but-not-technically/legally-bad-enough-to-get-Ruinenlust's-boot Forest Keeper out of office (and they'd have only one chance to, at that), then they would need to mass telegram Forestians and pray that those who are active, see it, care, agree and reply are WA members. As of now, that means we'd need consensus from 31 individuals from that specific group just to call a veto-able amendment to vote, as well as 41 such individuals just to call my Forest Keepership into vote.

Now, I'd brought this up once before on discord and gotten the opinion (admittedly from only one individual) that these are more-or-less formalities as a weapon of last resort, in case Ruinenlust happens to have disappeared/gone crazy and the Forest Keeper is truly awful to the point everyone actually cares. It could very well be argued that the whole point of these clauses is they're not to be used - although I'd argue they might as well not even be in there if that's the case. However, I just wanted to see if anyone would be interested in bringing these percentages down somewhat to at least make them more realistic options.

I mean, we'd need something very massive to not have apathy already; I'd personally be fine with even just having 5-10% of WA members who've been here for over a month (just in case random raider wizardry) be able to call either an amendment or for my removal. I personally think it'd strike a far nicer balance between preventing random spam/government hassle/coup/minority unelected legislator rule, and giving folks more freedom to bring about amendment drafts (and hopefully promote more discussions on them) as well as the ability to boot out an electee they frankly cannot wait several months longer to get rid of.

As a side note, in case this region gets very small (say we have like 15 WA members for some reason), we could always either pass an amendment down the line to raise the limit again, or simply add a minimum count of WA nations as well so both requirements need to be met.

So, that's basically my idea: reduce the %s of articles 5.1-iv and 9.1-iii so they're more viable, without becoming too viable. If you all feel like they really should remain excessively impossible options (or even should be removed, because as I said I can also see good reason for this), please feel free to argue those viewpoints as well. Or, if you're not interested in the slightest, feel free to disregard this message lol. But I did want to raise this idea with everyone just in case anyone was interested in giving the average Forestian more power over the government.

Anyhow, sorry for the massive text wall for that one idea xD Hope everyone's doing well, and like I say ad nauseam, please do telegram me if you have any questions/concerns/just feel like typing about general NS things ;p

Jutsa wrote:

Amending Referendum/Recall

Hi everyone! So I had a couple of quick questions that you may or may not care about, related to Official Business^TM

So I had gone through the constitution a few times (in no small part because I keep forgetting swathes of it here and there), and I noticed a few things that I thought might be interesting changes down the road, but wasn't sure if they'd be everyone's cup of tea. There are a few things, but since we've got... like, over four months to go over them, and this one thing is already a bit lengthy and peculiar enough on its own, I'll just bring up the one now and see what you guys think about it.

The thing I wanted to ask everyone about first is actually two similar clauses in the constitution, regarding the populace of Forest calling for either amendments or a Forest Keeper's removal from office. More specifically, Articles 5.1-iv and 9.1-iii. If you hadn't noticed them before, they're... kinda interesting, aren't they? xD

So, to briefly go over what they do: 9.1-iii allows for 25% of Forest's total WA population to call for a constitutional amendment (within 2 weeks) and bring it to vote (to which it may be vetoed by yours truly), while 5.1-iv allows for I (or any Forest Keeper) to be removed if a vote is called by 33% of Forest's total WA population within a one-week period (assuming it hasn't already happened before in the same term).

At present as this is written, this would mean that if any one or group of people who wanted to propose even a small change to the amendment or get an extremely-undesirable-but-not-technically/legally-bad-enough-to-get-Ruinenlust's-boot Forest Keeper out of office (and they'd have only one chance to, at that), then they would need to mass telegram Forestians and pray that those who are active, see it, care, agree and reply are WA members. As of now, that means we'd need consensus from 31 individuals from that specific group just to call a veto-able amendment to vote, as well as 41 such individuals just to call my Forest Keepership into vote.

Now, I'd brought this up once before on discord and gotten the opinion (admittedly from only one individual) that these are more-or-less formalities as a weapon of last resort, in case Ruinenlust happens to have disappeared/gone crazy and the Forest Keeper is truly awful to the point everyone actually cares. It could very well be argued that the whole point of these clauses is they're not to be used - although I'd argue they might as well not even be in there if that's the case. However, I just wanted to see if anyone would be interested in bringing these percentages down somewhat to at least make them more realistic options.

I mean, we'd need something very massive to not have apathy already; I'd personally be fine with even just having 5-10% of WA members who've been here for over a month (just in case random raider wizardry) be able to call either an amendment or for my removal. I personally think it'd strike a far nicer balance between preventing random spam/government hassle/coup/minority unelected legislator rule, and giving folks more freedom to bring about amendment drafts (and hopefully promote more discussions on them) as well as the ability to boot out an electee they frankly cannot wait several months longer to get rid of.

As a side note, in case this region gets very small (say we have like 15 WA members for some reason), we could always either pass an amendment down the line to raise the limit again, or simply add a minimum count of WA nations as well so both requirements need to be met.

So, that's basically my idea: reduce the %s of articles 5.1-iv and 9.1-iii so they're more viable, without becoming too viable. If you all feel like they really should remain excessively impossible options (or even should be removed, because as I said I can also see good reason for this), please feel free to argue those viewpoints as well. Or, if you're not interested in the slightest, feel free to disregard this message lol. But I did want to raise this idea with everyone just in case anyone was interested in giving the average Forestian more power over the government.

Anyhow, sorry for the massive text wall for that one idea xD Hope everyone's doing well, and like I say ad nauseam, please do telegram me if you have any questions/concerns/just feel like typing about general NS things ;p

I’d be up for debating changing the amendment referendum policy because yeah, 31 people is kind of a lot when (don’t quote me on this, I’d have to check WA-exclusive poll turnout) I doubt we have 31 active/invested, unique general members on the rmb in any given week, but I do also feel like the 1/3 measure for starting impeachment referenda is justifiable especially given that it can only happen once in a term, so if, for example, we have a major WA-member raid happen, they could potentially overthrow the native leadership and we’d have no recourse.

In other news, idk what rps we have going rn, but Difinbelk’s currently going through a fairly long, semi-significant decline in both Weather and Environmental Beauty^1,2, and looking at the Regional Map’s description³ of Difinol lands, I could see the (temporarily?) declining support for environmentalism turning from a domestic issue into an international one bc of the threats to the area’s unique biodiversity.
¹ nation=difinbelk/detail=trend/censusid=63
² nation=difinbelk/detail=trend/censusid=41
³ Other Maps, Oceanic Forest subregions, “The Puloanyar”

Cameroi wrote:

it is in the mind. too many call it utopian.

it is where the dominance of aggressiveness is prevented, where the culture recognizes logic in the service of universal consideration, that is consideration for all things without limit, is the one and only alpha and omega of morality.
it isn't created by magic wands of ideology or belief. there are no exceptionalisms of either, nor of nations, genders, species, even worlds.
not in the context and sense of anything cameroi at any rate, would recognize as civilization.

Person! Hi!

Where is a... house?