ForestBoard

Nota bene: a quick glance at the Constitution tells me that it is not written in Legal English, and I assume it is also not meant to be interpreted very rigidly. If that is indeed the case, you can probably disregard some of the nitpicky commentaries vis-à-vis the proposal. With that being said, here it goes anyway:

• 7.1

  • 'Change of the WA delegate during this emergency period shall be undertaken only if absolutely necessary'.

    Could you please elaborate to me what constitutes as 'absolutely necessary' in this context?

  • 'Such a lock shall exist only for the duration of such a threat, and must be removed after no more than two weeks unless extension is approved by at least 50%+1 of native resident WA nations participating in a poll lasting at least 3 days'.

    This seems somewhat conflicting to me. Wouldn't that mean, if a threat were to last more than 2 weeks, a poll must be called every 2 weeks until said threat ended? Or am I interpreting this in the wrong way?

    Additionally, there is an inconsistency: 'two weeks' and '3 days'. I recommend that all numbers in the proposal be written in words instead of numerals, as legal precedent honours the words over the numerals, but ultimately it is up to you.
    (See also: '6 month' in Section 4.1.)

• 7.2

  • 'If both parties are in agreement [...]'

    Since 'parties' in here may include multiple regional officers, I believe it is suitable to use 'all' instead of 'both'.

• 7.3

  • 'Additional polls shall then be held to identify a new founding nation'.

    This is just my personal opinion, but I think it is better that instead of electing a nation to re-found Forest, we create a new jointly-owned account whose owners then be elected in some way (a là The Leftist Assembly [see: Article II of TLA's Constitution])

• 7.6

  • '[...] regional status shall return to its previous normal condition'.

    What does 'regional status' exactly mean? Apologies, I'm a bit unclear on this one.

I am sincerely in favour of this proposal, and I also appreciate that you took the time to consider all of our feedbacks, Verdant Haven. Hopefully we could still move forward as a region, even if uncertainty still looms over our community.

Verdant Haven wrote:

Yes. If Forest were to be re-founded, it would lose everything - the history, the commend, the RMB, the embassies - it's a complete wipe of the slate, no different than a completely new person showing up and founding their own region on day one. "Re-founding" is the polite term for when a region does that, but tries to carry forward the traditions of their former region by having the same people, same ideals, etc and starting again.

There are many reasons why we urgently desire to avoid that fate (hence the amendment being proposed).

The commend would actually remain, once the mods manually re-add it.

...:: Official Government Post ::...

Hi again everyone, and terribly sorry for the double post, but I wanted to explain my decision to extend the powers to all of our active Regional Ministers (and potentially Octopus islands, if they let me know that they are still active!).

To be very brief, the risk now is that Errinundera "logs back in," via automatic script or something, and resurfaces in a sinker region, but does not communicate or try to assume real-life charge of things. Then, the Executive power would revert back to them, and we would stuck in the same suspended animation, but now with only me as the one with Border Control, and nobody with the Executive power who is in the region.

And to be clear, I am not able to prevent Errinundera from regaining the Executive power should he log in (or more likely, "log in"), and that is also the only power which I don't have control over (aside from the WA Delegacy, which now functions in union with the Executive power, thanks to all of YOUR endorsements, by the way!). So in other words, despite having the Executive power, I'm not on the mechanical god-level that Errinundera's wielding was. Diminishing returns, folks! Yay! \o/

So after a few of the government ministers asked about it (and I had thought of it, too), I am "officially" invoking that we are under Clause 1.5 of the constitution (the "special emergency" clause, essentially), and that as such, I have extended the Border Control and other powers to the offices of the currently active ministers, in the event that I lose the Executive power without warning and before we can get things moving again.

It is also with the proverbial "heavy heart" that I realize, along with others above, that the cleanest and "best" course of action now for the region would be for Errinundera to simply never log in again, as sad as that is to say.

I'm terribly sorry if anyone feels as though I've overstepped, and I'm happy to have this revisited in the future. I don't know that we need to have such widespread Border Control once things revert back to normal, but once the password is gone, we'll be technically more exposed.

In the meantime, I might as well go for broke and also ask again for everyone's endorsement if they have not yet given it to me. Now more than ever, perhaps, it is good to have both the highest count for the delegacy as a public, high-profile numerical indicator for the region, as well as a high level of cross-endorsement within the community, two things are we always do very well with.

Your Very Inadequate Executive,
Ruinenlust

You've committed the cardinal sin of double posting. You must be deposed immediately now.

Edit: Nooo don't take me seriously ily delegate

Well, it appears I joined Forest at the right time. I might be able to experience (but sadly not vote in) a rare election! That will be interesting.

Imperium helvetiorum wrote:

You've committed the cardinal sin of double posting. You must be deposed immediately now.

Edit: Nooo don't take me seriously ily delegate

It's totally fine, lol! My first post was at best a two-star distraction with a political cheap shot.

Anyway, I think a good image for what's going on now is that, for the first time since Z-Day of 2019, a huge glass structure has come down over the entire expanse of Forest, and we are a region-sized terrarium, for the time being.

So we're totally secure, and the rest of the world is on the outside looking in, lol. Magic Jedi force field shield...

A jointly owned founding account would have weaker security. Also, I'm pretty sure the game admins discourage any nation's password being known by more than one person. If nothing else, it makes accountability very hard -- imagine if someone engaged in WA multi-ing while being one of the nation's accessing it. The fallout could hit multiple IP addresses.

I think a single founder in a refounded region is the most secure option, and an election is the best way to decide who that founder is.

On the other hand, I also think it's not unreasonable for an individual to run on the platform of intending to share their account details with other players. I just don't think it'd be a good idea to do so.

Imperium helvetiorum wrote:

Nota bene: a quick glance at the Constitution tells me that it is not written in Legal English, and I assume it is also not meant to be interpreted very rigidly. If that is indeed the case, you can probably disregard some of the nitpicky commentaries vis-à-vis the proposal. With that being said, here it goes anyway:

Quite right! It is definitely intended to be faux-legal, in the sense that there is a premium placed on comprehensibility to the average person, rather than legal professionals and antique questions of law. Your commentary is still very valuable and much appreciated, however, as the clarity you seek is part of making sure we don't find ourselves in a position of having to debate what the law means in the future, should some similar event arise.

Imperium helvetiorum wrote:

• 7.1

  • 'Change of the WA delegate during this emergency period shall be undertaken only if absolutely necessary'.

    Could you please elaborate to me what constitutes as 'absolutely necessary' in this context?

It is subject to interpretation, truly. It's inclusion is a retention of the previous language of our Constitution, desiring to emphasize that such a thing should not be done flippantly, and to provide basis for counter-argument or debate in the event it is proposed.

Imperium helvetiorum wrote:

'Such a lock shall exist only for the duration of such a threat, and must be removed after no more than two weeks unless extension is approved by at least 50%+1 of native resident WA nations participating in a poll lasting at least 3 days'.

This seems somewhat conflicting to me. Wouldn't that mean, if a threat were to last more than 2 weeks, a poll must be called every 2 weeks until said threat ended? Or am I interpreting this in the wrong way?

Thank you for that question here - your interpretation is correct. It is one of Forest's most important principals to be an open and accepting region - any threat would have to be dramatic indeed to last longer than two weeks, and it would be up to the people of the region to determine whether it is acceptable in light of this core value to retain such a long-term lockdown. It also means that in the event of a coup or take-over, there is legal basis to challenge and seek assistance removing a password that is placed as a hostile action.

Imperium helvetiorum wrote:

Additionally, there is an inconsistency: 'two weeks' and '3 days'. I recommend that all numbers in the proposal be written in words instead of numerals, as legal precedent honours the words over the numerals, but ultimately it is up to you.
(See also: '6 month' in Section 4.1.)

Good shout - I'll adjust for consistency.

Imperium helvetiorum wrote:

7.2

• 'If both parties are in agreement [...]'

  Since 'parties' in here may include multiple regional officers, I believe it is suitable to use 'all' instead of 'both'.

Likewise - will adjust.

Imperium helvetiorum wrote:

7.3

• 'Additional polls shall then be held to identify a new founding nation'.

  This is just my personal opinion, but I think it is better that instead of electing a nation to re-found Forest, we create a new jointly-owned account whose owners then be elected in some way (a là The Leftist Assembly [see: Article II of TLA's Constitution])

If that eventuality ever came to pass, I agree fully. It would however involve completely overhauling the entire Constitution top to bottom, as the Founder role (and the devolution of its identify to the WAD) is the entire basis for our power structure. It'd be a bit like removing the monarch from UK law - they don't do much, but they're the source of all power and it'd be a complicated task. As such, I would suggest we look into this as a separate amendment process down the line once we have the present contingency resolved.

Imperium helvetiorum wrote:

7.6

• '[...] regional status shall return to its previous normal condition'.

  What does 'regional status' exactly mean? Apologies, I'm a bit unclear on this one.

This refers to the cancellation of Article 7 procedures. I can replace the term "regional status" with "regional operations"

Imperium helvetiorum wrote:

I am sincerely in favour of this proposal, and I also appreciate that you took the time to consider all of our feedbacks, Verdant Haven. Hopefully we could still move forward as a region, even if uncertainty still looms over our community.

I'm glad to have your support! I also appreciate you taking the time to give all of this feedback. Nothing is so good it can't be improved, and your questions are well-directed. Forest will emerge from this stronger than ever

Sorry to hear that your founder CTE’d, hopefully there won’t be any issues in the restructuring process over to a WAD :) If you guys do need any material assistance, whether that be in the form of supporting a SC Proposal or sending in people to help boost your delegate endorsements, we’d be glad to help out!

It’d be a shame to see the original Forest region have to be refounded, but for long term security purposes I can definitely see why you guys would need to do it eventually

Just stopping by to pay my respects to your founder. May Errinundera forever be remembered, and may Forest continue to thrive for many years to come. o7

Yodle wrote:

Sorry to hear that your founder CTE’d, hopefully there won’t be any issues in the restructuring process over to a WAD :) If you guys do need any material assistance, whether that be in the form of supporting a SC Proposal or sending in people to help boost your delegate endorsements, we’d be glad to help out!

It’d be a shame to see the original Forest region have to be refounded, but for long term security purposes I can definitely see why you guys would need to do it eventually

Yeah it's really unfortunate that Errinundera CTEd. Hopefully this region won't get raided.

By the way this is the The green environment. I have a puppet here

Imperium helvetiorum wrote:

Re: 7.3

'If the result of the poll is at least 50%+1 in favor of refounding, [...]'

I'm being nitpicky here, but I don't think '50%+1' is legally readable. I suggest to replace 'at least 50%+1' with 'more than 50 per cent'.

Isn't that simply called a simple majority though? Unless of course we're counting all eligible voters, in which case absolute majority would be more correct, afaik.

Lets be honest, all of this is obviously because of me. Everything really started to go down hill when I CTE’d. Forest was just a shell of its self without the glorious cypher nine. I’m glad that my ressurection has once again brought peace to Forest and that his resolution will go forward.

I logged out for a week and the suddently Errinundera CTEd???? What the heck else did I miss??

The most serene republicans wrote:

I logged out for a week and the suddently Errinundera CTEd???? What the heck else did I miss??

a lot. You missed a lot. I don't think I can sum it up, but today has been pretty hectic as they CTE'd sometime last night. To get a better jist on the situation, just look at the past 3 pages of the RMB.

Nation of ecologists wrote:

a lot. You missed a lot. I don't think I can sum it up, but today has been pretty hectic as they CTE'd sometime last night. To get a better jist on the situation, just look at the past 3 pages of the RMB.

just did. oh my god

I joined super recently, and I didn't even meet Errinundera, but I heard a lot about them. It's a shame that now we'll never meet (probably). I hope they're irl alive and well and just got bored of the game.
As for the lore, as a forestian, may their body and soul now go back to nature, and may the most beautiful tree grow from what they left behind... o7

I have hundreds of unread boardmessages and now I need to think should I just leave them be or try to swim through them without drowning.

Novian Republics wrote:

Isn't that simply called a simple majority though? Unless of course we're counting all eligible voters, in which case absolute majority would be more correct, afaik.

Yes, it's called a simple majority. I believe you would need to clearly define 'simple majority' in advance if you wanted to use the term legally since it could be deliberately misinterpreted. Directly describing it is more convenient IMO.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

A jointly owned founding account would have weaker security. Also, I'm pretty sure the game admins discourage any nation's password being known by more than one person. If nothing else, it makes accountability very hard -- imagine if someone engaged in WA multi-ing while being one of the nation's accessing it. The fallout could hit multiple IP addresses.

I wasn't actually aware of that; I should've thought about it more thoroughly. With that in mind then, I'm now of the opinion that the account should only be owned by a single individual.

Also, thank you again for taking my feedback into consideration, Verdant Haven. Much appreciated!

Dr Teeth wrote:

At last, a chance for Raider Bele Levy Epies to take over

RBLE was supposed to return to Forest after S3 cards arrive. (I assumed that would be a year after S2.) Now it's stuck in TBH and can't return because of the password.

Simbolon wrote:

I can't help myself but wondering what are the roles and significance of every Bele Levy Epies iteration in their lore..

Something like this:

Outer Bele Levy Epies (capitalist) and Inner Bele Levy Epies (communist) were created after a civil war or something in Bele Levy Epies, which doesn't officially exist anymore. New Bele Levy Epies was a colony which declared independence either at the same time or soon after that.

OOC: Outer Bele Levy Epies was the first one of these nations I created, the name is from the random name generator.

Ambassador Bele Levy Epies is the ambassador puppet in Refugia, Pokemon Bele Levy Epies is a puppet in Pokemon Gang that was created as a joke, Card Bele Levy Epies is a card farming puppet and Raider Bele Levy Epies was created (also as a joke) for last year's April Fools Day (it was a candidate in the WA election, although that's not why it was created). RBLE was originally supposed to become an actual TBH raiding puppet after April Fools Day, but that didn't happen.

Jutsa wrote:

Also note this is the 200th day Ruinenlust has been delegate.

Suspicious coincidence if you ask me. :thonking:

ejects Ruinenlust from Suspicious

Wow
The founder/Forest really is gone
F in the chat
Anyways, you guys really are paranoid.

Drew Durrnil wrote:

Wow
The founder/Forest really is gone
F in the chat
Anyways, you guys really are paranoid.

A prominent historical region like Forest would be a juicy target for raiders to attempt to take on

I've never been a fan of the whole "raiders" thing in NS. It just ruins the fun for everyone else mostly.