by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Forest RMB
Forest was Commended by Security Council Resolution # 219

WA Delegate (non-executive): The Inexorable Weathering of Ruinenlust (elected )

Founder: The Cool Temperate Rainforests of Errinundera

Last WA Update:

World Factbook Entry

🌲 Forest welcomes all nations, especially those concerned with the environment.


Links:

Constitution | LinkDiscord | LinkForum | History | Newspaper | Getting More Involved | Polls | Statistics | Ambassadors


Quote of the Fortnight

"Of winter's lifeless world each tree
Now seems a perfect part;
Yet each one holds summer's secret
Deep down within its heart."

~ Charles G. Stater


🗳️ WA Nations, please consider endorsing our delegate Ruinenlust. Every endorsement gives Forest greater voting power in the WA.



🤝 Applying for an embassy? Please read our embassy policy first.



🌏 Want a place on our Regional Map, please see here for details.



  1. 9

    Government Transparency Report #10 - Dec 2020

    MetaGameplay by Verdant Haven . 84 reads.

  2. 39

    Sixth Annual Forest Photo Contest 2020!

    BulletinNews by Mount Seymour . 547 reads.

  3. 6

    Forest's Research & Statistics Grove

    MetaReference by Kawastyselir . 400 reads.

  4. 34

    Maps of Forest

    MetaReference by Octopus Islands . 2,638 reads.

  5. 8

    Want to be an Ambassador?

    MetaGameplay by Verdant Haven . 318 reads.

  6. 6

    The Cabinets of Forest

    MetaReference by Kawastyselir . 130 reads.

  7. 43

    THE OFFICIAL FOREST RECIPE LIST

    MetaReference by Palos Heights . 509 reads.

  8. 16

    Forest Directory

    MetaReference by Mount Seymour . 1,133 reads.

  9. 37

    Constitution of Forest

    MetaReference by Mount Seymour . 2,507 reads.

  10. 49

    Forest Regional History

    MetaReference by Mozworld . 1,932 reads.

▼ 7 More

Embassies: Philosophy 115, Eladen, Hippy Haven, Yggdrasil, International Democratic Union, Antarctica, Winterfell, Sunalaya, Antarctic Oasis, Texas, Canada, A Liberal Haven, Union of Free Nations, Singapore, The Region That Has No Big Banks, Democratic Socialist Assembly, and 20 others.the Rejected Realms, The Bar on the corner of every region, the South Pacific, Oatland, Haiku, Portugal, 10000 Islands, Spiritus, Conch Kingdom, The North Pacific, The Leftist Assembly, Europe, Sonindia, Wintreath, Osiris, Refugia, The Union of Democratic States, Thalassia, New West Indies, and Force.

Tags: Casual, Commended, Democratic, Eco-Friendly, Enormous, Featured, Issues Player, Map, Multi-Species, Offsite Chat, Pacifist, Regional Government, and 2 others.Social, and World Assembly.

Regional Power: Extremely High

Forest contains 489 nations, the 40th most in the world.

ActivityHistoryAdministration

Today's World Census Report

The Highest Average Incomes in Forest

The World Census carefully compared the average spending power of citizens in each nation.

As a region, Forest is ranked 3,301st in the world for Highest Average Incomes.

NationWA CategoryMotto
1.The Burning Trash Fire of Lord DominatorCorporate Police State“Fire Solves All Things”
2.The AI See You of Candlewhisper ArchiveAnarchy“You Got Issues”
3.The Sylvan Hivə of TurbeauxCivil Rights Lovefest“Not only doəs God play dicə, thə dicə arə loadəd.”
4.The Theocratic Crusader State of The Oracai Templar OrderIron Fist Consumerists“Glory to the Flame!”
5.The Tree State of CannibalandCivil Rights Lovefest“You are free, even to not be free”
6.The Socialist Republic of KrusavichDemocratic Socialists“There will be no compromise”
7.The Dictatorship of Theennerla IslandCorporate Police State“You Can't Stop Progress”
8.The Glorious Empire of WoolitaniaLiberal Democratic Socialists“Lassen Sie mich Arzt, ich bin durch!”
9.The Actually we're Parfuhmerie of Shwe Tu ColonyInoffensive Centrist Democracy“The Shwe world is a simulation”
10.The Aristocracy of Woodfall SwampInoffensive Centrist Democracy“All Hail The King”
1234. . .4849»

Regional Happenings

More...

Forest Regional Message Board

Nation of Ecologists wrote:This seems like exactly something you would do.

What is that supposed to mean? <Squinting menacingly>

But really it was a very fun and educational and practically useful class, and as much as he was annoyed that his lesson went the whole other direction, this is his forté and he seemed very happy explaining all of it. And after class I went back and checked and it turned out that following a 2010 revision of the law, not only are Onions banned from being traded but so are futures agreements involving Box Office sales. Congress is weird

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Question on ethics, I'm curious to know your thoughts, all.

I have patients who feel anxious about going to work because of covid 19.

There workplaces have taken all reasonable measures to protect their staff, but some people remain understandably frightened.

They want signing off work for anxiety. They are not wanting medical treatment, as when not at work they are not anxious.

Do you think it's reasonable for them to be signed off work by their doctor?

For me, the crux of the question is the statement that their workplaces have taken all reasonable measures to protect their staff.

I wouldn't consider the fear or anxiety about COVID to be the primary consideration - rather, is that fear or anxiety justified? In your medical opinion, do the measures taken in the workplace actually protect staff, or are they just the things that can be reasonably done to partly reduce the risk while still leaving staff exposed to an unacceptable hazard? Just because reasonable efforts have been taken, that doesn't mean it's safe. If you believe the people will be just as safe at work as at home, and they just don't want to go to work because they are frightened of something that isn't really a threat, then I would think that is insufficient. If the threat is still significant, but is simply less than it would be with no measures at all, then I could see justification for saying they should be able to stay home.

I recall looking over the pandemic staffing plan of a previous agency I worked for many years ago, as part of my emergency prep work (yes, they did actually have one!). Their plan was to divide the staff into three groups, and to use just the first group for a couple weeks (with extensive overtime and cross-staffing) to reduce how many people were exposed at once. Then, when that group became so sick they could no longer function, they would be sent home and the next group called in. That would then be done again, and the assumption was that by the time the third group was so sick they couldn't work, the survivors of the first group could be brought back in again for another cycle. In the agency's mind, it was a great plan - it ensured work functions were being completed, it maximized operational continuity, it had a timeline reasoned out... but they gave not a single thought in the world for the fact that their workers are actual humans and might not be ok with the idea of being expendable OT plague machines. It is important to know what the measures an employer has in place actually do, and who they are "reasonable" for.

Nation of Ecologists wrote:*lurks*

Oh, the photo contest is on! I forgot! I will try to remember to vote, those photos were amazing! Always nice to see the real-world. And that cultural registry is taunting me, I need to submit something but I also want to put effort into it and I don't know if I have the time.

I'm quite annoyed because I got a lovely picture last night, just too late...

Uan aa Boa wrote:Things are crazy right now, lots of people are unraveling rapidly but this is temporary. I'd err on the side of kindness. In the words of Samuel Johnson, it's happier to sometimes be cheated than never to trust.

I strongly agree with this sentiment. Unless it's using up necessary resources, who cares if someone gets away with not having to be at work? I'm damn near at the end of my rope, and I mostly work from home now.

As people have asked, some points on the ethics question.

First off, pragmatically speaking, we docs will pretty much always sign off anyone who asks for it. The alternative has too much potential to cause stress and argument for us, and even in better times its not a good use of our time to fight some fights.

Re the diagnostic criteria, they're entirely based on subjective report of symptoms. If someone describes persistent and severe mood disturbance they meet the criteria.

Re accepting treatment, I think that it's reasonable to decline medication if a life change achieves mood improvement. Depression =/= needs meds. Re counselling, that's a limited resource, but basically you get a phone number, a 3 month waiting list, then some group zoom calls. Unless you're under 18 then you get a list of charities who might help. Actual psychiatrists are for patients with psychotic illnesses or self harm. Depression isn't something the NHS properly provisions for.

My own view is that people should be allowed to take time off purely on their own declaration, but that sick pay durations should be limited by law, after which employer obligations should fall away. I don't think doctors should be involved until there's need for dispute resolution.

For the specific issue of covid risk causing anxiety, my opinion is skewed by the fact that my own workplace carries more risk than theirs, so part of me thinks "if we can do it, so can you, and if you can't, get out of the job and let that wage go for someone who can."

Verdant Haven wrote:I wouldn't consider the fear or anxiety about COVID to be the primary consideration - rather, is that fear or anxiety justified? In your medical opinion, do the measures taken in the workplace actually protect staff, or are they just the things that can be reasonably done to partly reduce the risk while still leaving staff exposed to an unacceptable hazard?

Surely if the patient has a justified concern about their safety then that's rational decision making rather than clinical anxiety. Anxiety in a medical sense isn't the same as being scared or worried (though the strain of fear and worry can contribute to developing anxiety). I'd say an essential feature of clinical anxiety is that it's a disproportionate response to the situation. Knowing that it makes no sense is part of what makes it so frustrating, often creating a vicious circle of increasing stress.

An employee who has legitimate safety concerns at work should seek the support of their trade union rather than their doctor.

I have a question. I'm working on an entry for cultural registry thing. However, the cultural object is located in the island of matos, which belongs to the Autonomous Province of Gurá and Matos, which happens to be part of MSR, but also have it's own independent account which I might use for ambassador work later. Should I submit it as part of the MSR, which is technically correct, or as part of Gura and Matos?

EDIT: Oh my god, re-reading this mesage after having coffee and finally waking up enough to type is killing me. English is not my first language

The Most Serene Republicans wrote:I have a question. I'm working on an entry for cultural registry thing. However, the cultural object is located in the island of matos, which belongs to the Autonomous Province of Gurá and Matos, which happens to be part of MSR, but also have it's own independent account which I might use for ambassador work later. Should I submit it as part of the MSR, which is technically correct, or as part of Gura and Matos?

In this case, I don't really mind which nation you use. I would say that (according to the submission criteria) your submission must contribute significantly to your nation's cultural heritage, so if it's important to the people of Gura and Matos only then that might be more appropriate, but if it's part of the "story" of MSR as a whole then that might be the more appropriate choice. You could also make your choice based on IC reasons, like if you think Gura and Matos as an autonomous province has the power to submit something to the Register or if that power is reserved for the governing body of MSR. Honestly, though, you can choose the nation that you want to be credited as on the Register - so if you'd rather see it listed as one over the other you're welcome to do so. I wouldn't split hairs like that when looking over your submission.

It would be different if the two nations were absolutely separate and you tried to submit something under the wrong nation, but that's not the case here.

The Most Serene Republicans wrote:EDIT: Oh my god, re-reading this mesage after having coffee and finally waking up enough to type is killing me. English is not my first language

It's really not that bad haha.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

My own view is that people should be allowed to take time off purely on their own declaration, but that sick pay durations should be limited by law, after which employer obligations should fall away. I don't think doctors should be involved until there's need for dispute resolution.

This was part of the difficulty I had with commenting on the issue. This is basically exactly how it works at my employer (although it's a combination of state law and collective bargaining agreement terms). I accrue sick leave without limit, and may use it at my own discretion except 1) I must provide my supervisor with as much notice before the fact as possible, and 2) I must provide a doctor's note if for more than a few days. The doctor's note need only be to the effect of "Nattily Dressed Anarchists on Bicycles has a medical condition." Specific details are not required unless I choose to disclose them. In fact, on the rare occasion that I've used such a note, my health care provider just hands me two copies, one which names the condition and one which doesn't.

The actual duration of my sick leave is not limited except by how much I have accrued to begin with. Catastrophic/long-term conditions needing leave beyond that have additional options available, but documentation will obviously be required by that point.

I work for a semi-government (a public corporation established by the state legislature, but otherwise self-governing) and have a union, so more fully "private" sector experiences probably differ.

edit: soft-power consideration would also limit sick leave use. I think my employer generally recognizes the idea of a couple days off for mental health, but doing so on a weekly basis might be frowned upon. By strict interpretation of the bargaining agreement, I could get away with it, but concern for the subtle or not-so-subtle wording of this year's performance review generally prevents me, etc.

Question to people who are using more than one pronoun, e.g., she/they or he/they. Now that the semester has kicked off, we keep having "first meetings" for literally any course online, introduce ourselves and declare our pronouns. I see that some people choose multiple pronouns and I have no idea whether they are completely interchangeable or not. Yesterday, one student mentioned using she/they pronouns, depending on context. We are not close at all, and it is unlikely that I will talk about this person in the third person; so I did not want to be impertinent by asking "can you explain how it varies based on context?"

I mean no offense, I am just curious and want to learn. If you use multiple pronouns, which one do you use in which contexts, are there any parameters that can help us guess which one would be more appropriate? Is there one of those two pronouns that you prefer more than the other? Are you OK with people just going with 'they' if they are unsure?

Thanks in advance for the clarification.

Forum View

Advertisement