Campaign Questions, Comments, and Responses

Questions, Comments, and Responses:

I have selected some points to respond to. I apologize for the delay. I wanted to be thoughtful with my responses!
Questions:

1. The whole situation with LCURA was clearly handled very badly by them, and the government's response to someone posting transphobic and [antisemitic] stuff on discord was pretty awful. While I doubt that Forest would handle such an incident as badly, do you personally have any thoughts on how to ensure Forest's response to such an incident is robust, or do you feel our current way of doing things is sufficient?

2. Looking forward six months from now. What would you consider a win? Are there any particular things that you feel Forest could be doing better?

3. What would your preferred government look like? Are you planning any major changes in terms of nations or positions? If so, or if not, why?

4. Would there be any regions you believe Forest should form a closer bond with? How would you seek to achieve this? Following this, do you believe there are any regions Forest should [withdraw] their embassy from?

5. Finally, concerning the "Constitutional Change on Embassies" submitted by Mount Seymour, would you continue to support this change to the constitution? Why, or why not?

6. As I understand, during every Forest Keeper race, the question of Forest's role in NS gameplay always appears. As has been asked in the past, what are your thoughts on the current state of Forest in foreign affairs, and do you believe anything should change? I know there is always a debate over whether Forest should seek to take a larger, or smaller, role in gameplay affairs.

7. Following past scandals in the gameplay community, like the allegations that surfaced against the New Pacific Order only a few months ago, how will you safeguard Forest's neutrality in these conflicts, or do you believe our region should move away from a position of neutrality?

Comment:

8. More as a suggestion than a question, but by specifically identifying nations to benefit from your election, that creates the impression of a spoils system and vote buying. Might be a bit less déclassé to save the specific beneficiaries until after your potential election, rather than dangling a carrot.

Answers:

1. Our system worked well enough, so I see no reason to alter it. However, I reserve the right to change my mind about that. I do not have a crystal ball, so I do not know what will happen during the upcoming term. Of course, if any changes were to be made, I would seek to pursue them democratically!

2. I would consider my term to be a win if we pursued more Forest-hosted interregional events and continued with our strong tradition of democracy. One area in which I feel that Forest could be doing a better job is informatively welcoming new Foresters. Many of these nations have no idea what World Assembly membership entails so they do not join.

3. I am only planning on replacing Canaltia at this time because they indicated that they would not be able to serve as the Voice of Forest for another term. Otherwise, I am planning on continuing the Deputy Forest Keeper position. In more general terms, I would love to maintain the committee system. Perhaps I could have a committee of non-WA nations rather than a “council of advisors.”

4. Conifer seems like an excellent example of a region that we should form a closer bond with. (However, I am biased because I considered the establishment of our Conifer embassy to be one of my primary goals within my DFK term.) I think that our bond could be strengthened with interregional events. I was disappointed to discover that their latest event was strictly intraregional, but I get the impression that they will most likely pursue more inclusive events in the future. I am also keeping a close eye on Arbor with one of my puppets. That may be an embassy worth pursuing once they meet our requirements.

5. I was overenthusiastic with my support of that. Looking at the issue as a Forest Keeper candidate makes me personally feel that we should maintain our current embassy procedures. Forest has had a good record with closing embassies when it is called for (e.g. Gay and the LCURA). However, I would like to see Mount Seymour's proposal go up for a vote. My opinion does not matter compared to Forest’s collective opinions!

6. I believe that Forest is positioned well in terms of gameplay presence. I think that the current state of our foreign affairs is excellent. We have embassies with other large and influential regions in addition to smaller ones that align with our values. I would appreciate tips on regions that others believe to have potential as embassies (either presently or at some point in the future). However, I am not seeking to aggressively expand our diplomatic presence.

7. I believe a policy of wary neutrality is in Forest’s best interest. I hope that myself, my cabinet, and Forest’s population would work to maintain this principle.

Response:

8. You caught me! I was trying to buy votes from nations that cannot vote! To be serious, listing specific nations is a bit gauche and unnecessary. Accordingly, I have removed the list. Any and all non-WA nations are free to join my committee!

Addendum:

Someone asked why I think that Forest is an unfriendly place for non-WA nations. I do not believe that it is, but I would like input from nations that cannot vote in WA-only polls. I am not suggesting that they should be able to vote in such polls or sway WA members' WA votes! It would just be nice to get their perspectives on certain topics.