Very nice! You know you gave me the idea for Middle Barael to be formed by many different cultures accidentally winding up here over the millennia! Iíve always greatly looked up to your nation, and this map is really nice. What tool did you use to make it? And are you on the Forest map?
I used InkScape to make it, and I am not on the map yet. Not sure if thereís anywhere on the regional map that would really fit for this nation; maybe Iíll make a puppet that is really integrated with this nationís history and can be on the map?
My influence comes from my long-time residence in Europe, over 280 endorsements, and some sort of activity in my home region which has been transferred with me moving here where I don't have any of the perks listed
Inkscape seems like a very good tool for something like this, however if you're basing your nation off of something IRL, mapchart works well too. I did make a map of NoE with Mapchart, but I have no idea how to upload it....
This phenomenon is one of the ways I knew early on that Forest was a good home for me. For every one of my top stats that I truly care about, I'm 8-20 times lower in the Forest rankings than in the globals. Secularism 0.3%/3%. Eco-Friendliness 0.3%/7%. Weather 0.4%/8%. Environmental Beauty 0.5%/8%. Tourism 0.7%/9%. Public Education 1%/9%. The list goes on!
Same on the reverse end. I have 11 stats that are global 100th percentile, but in Forest two of those are barely even 90th percentile. Even in my lowest stat, Religiousness, where there are only 588 nations anywhere that are lower (equivalent to bottom 0.3%) there are ten other Forest nations that have me beat.
You all are my people!
Interestingly, I recall the issue I wrote on gay panic defense having pretty split option choice selection from nations, but an IE would have to confirm if Iím remembering that right.
I have never pressed the "For" button faster in my life when I saw this resolution was up. Now, where do I click to vote for the Gay Panic Defense Ban in real life?
Oh, wow. I've been gone all day and I got really stressed but seeing the majority vote in favor of this new resolution made me feel a little bit better :)
Notify me if you ever find out, please!
Same here. I usually try to analyze all resolutions in full, because there have been a couple times where even though it seemed to be a good thing there ended up being a potential loophole, unclear text, or just poor writing which made me ultimately decide to vote against it (for example, the recently defeated condemnation of Lily). This however was not one of those times. It was well-written and leaves no room for loopholes or alternate interpretation.
I do think the aim of the current resolution is already covered by previous legislation that prevents discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (article 2b of GAR#35), although I voted for nonetheless. That's probably wrong but the idea of voting against felt wronger to me.
[grinding rattly noise in bicycle headset bearings]
That sounds bad. But it's late, and I need to work tomorrow. Is there time?
[looks at clock]
[Narrator: There wasn't.]
To be honest, this resolution probably does need more editing. There is some odd word usage, and the use of "one's" in the third paragraph is kind of ambiguous; the simultaneous use of "one's" and "them" to refer to the victims of violence is somewhat confusing. In fact, this paragraph almost reads as if it's suggesting that courts will find violence against aggressors acceptable if sexual orientation etc. are considered relevant. One has to be very careful with the "one's" and "them"s, or one might end up saying things one did not intend.
A clearer definition of "gay panic defense" is needed. A legal defense claiming violence in response to unwanted same-sex contact was caused by a state of temporary insanity. Such defense is hereby disallowed because [bulletpoint list here]....
Or some such. At the very least, fewer "ones," "thous," "thems," "therebys," and "whereas-es" is almost always the correct choice.
Agree in spirit, but if I was the author, I'd ask to pull this one back for improvements, tbh. Call me nitpicky, but lawyers are wordy nitpickers, and I hear the WA is absolutely rotten with them...
tl;dr - viewtopic.php?p=38354416#p38354416 <-- yeah, pretty much should have gone with this.
Clearer definitions, and a better attempt to address situations where defense against sexual assault might actually be the case (important for the occasion where it might actually be, and also because this will be one of the resolution's opponent's go to talking-points...). But yeah, if our measly voice would actually make a difference at this point, the Nattily Dressed would vote "no, because this instead."