Leng
Moderator: Staff
- Colonel Vilhelm
- Apollo Foundation Administrator
- Posts: 2108
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:27 pm
- Location: Micras
- Contact:
Re: Leng
That (removing Universalis, the country that occupies the continent) isn't the focus of this debate. Some people want to remove the northern-most continent, called Leng, entirely from the map. I.e., landmass= gone. It was added in a long time after the map was originally drawn to allow more space for nations to expand, but it is argued that it is horribly inaccurate geographically. It's real shape would be really weird, as seen on some polar projections. However, some want to see Leng kept on the map, because it is currently used, and it has been there a while and some of us have grown to see it as a real and complete part of the Micran map.King Ailin of Uantir wrote:If it's inactive than it needs to go away, it's only fair.
Edited, thanks spangle.
Colonel Vilhelm von Benkern - Preserving the Memories (Regardless of whose those may be)
Pro at Cooking!
Antica
Pro at Cooking!
Antica
- dr-spangle
- Technical Advisor
- Posts: 13072
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:20 pm
- Contact:
- Guido Zambelis
- Posts: 2854
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:26 pm
Re: Leng
And what, exactly, constitutes inactivity? Less than 1PPD on Universalis' forum?
Because, tell me then, why there is this sudden approval of wikinations and email nations that don't even have a forum to support their activity. You have no justification for telling me Universalis is inactive when those other nations are given the right to exist on the map. It's a double-standard which I will not tolerate. Our wiki is just as elaborate and detailed as any of those so-called wikinations.
Your previous argument against Leng was that it was "unrealistic" because Amokolia was placing cities and all kinds of things that, in the real world, have no ability to exist on the island. Since Universalis took over, that practice has been eliminated, the population scaled back to a fragmentary Inuit-like culture, and settlements reduced to few tiny sheltered locations. This is neither unrealistic nor is it in not keeping with the standard practices of all MCS members.
Geographically, polar projection has no bearing whatsoever on the practical argument of whether Leng should be kept or not. Greenland is enlarged to several times its actual size on a mercator projection. Do we destroy Greenland because this isn't "aesthetically pleasing"? No. We make the best of it.
Leng has been on the map for half the life of the MCS. And that latter half has seen more members and activity than the former. Therefore Leng has seen more application and distribution via the map series than any of the maps without it. Therefore, for the sake of consistency, it must be kept. It is far more plausible to say that the island was not discovered until it was placed on the map than to remove it and try to fabricate some sort of destruction that, within the bounds of realism, would have to cause a global cataclysm in order to realistically remove the island.
Because, tell me then, why there is this sudden approval of wikinations and email nations that don't even have a forum to support their activity. You have no justification for telling me Universalis is inactive when those other nations are given the right to exist on the map. It's a double-standard which I will not tolerate. Our wiki is just as elaborate and detailed as any of those so-called wikinations.
Your previous argument against Leng was that it was "unrealistic" because Amokolia was placing cities and all kinds of things that, in the real world, have no ability to exist on the island. Since Universalis took over, that practice has been eliminated, the population scaled back to a fragmentary Inuit-like culture, and settlements reduced to few tiny sheltered locations. This is neither unrealistic nor is it in not keeping with the standard practices of all MCS members.
Geographically, polar projection has no bearing whatsoever on the practical argument of whether Leng should be kept or not. Greenland is enlarged to several times its actual size on a mercator projection. Do we destroy Greenland because this isn't "aesthetically pleasing"? No. We make the best of it.
Leng has been on the map for half the life of the MCS. And that latter half has seen more members and activity than the former. Therefore Leng has seen more application and distribution via the map series than any of the maps without it. Therefore, for the sake of consistency, it must be kept. It is far more plausible to say that the island was not discovered until it was placed on the map than to remove it and try to fabricate some sort of destruction that, within the bounds of realism, would have to cause a global cataclysm in order to realistically remove the island.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Leng
Ryan, I think he was saying that a little tongue-in-cheek (or tongue-out-of-mouth, if the smiley's anything to go by ). "Wikinations" and those without forums have seen a couple of examples claim small bits of land recently, but there have been forumless nations with barely any land on the map for ages anyway.Ryan wrote:And what, exactly, constitutes inactivity? Less than 1PPD on Universalis' forum?
Because, tell me then, why there is this sudden approval of wikinations and email nations that don't even have a forum to support their activity. You have no justification for telling me Universalis is inactive when those other nations are given the right to exist on the map. It's a double-standard which I will not tolerate. Our wiki is just as elaborate and detailed as any of those so-called wikinations.
Obviously reductions for inactivity only work for nations which have too much land than their presence deserves, and obviously only nations with forums are allowed to expand (so, in turn, can only be reduced it they don't merit the land anymore). Forumless nations are given the minimum land they can get with no forum and can't expand without one. If they do get one and manage to expand, then their land can come under the same scrutiny as the other nations who depend on activity to sustain larger amounts of land.
But yeah, I'm pretty sure Spangle was just messing with that comment, especially considering the language he used, linking two of the board's hotter topics together for slight comical effect... Or the like
- Scott Alexander
- Special Map Cartographer
- Posts: 580
- Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:12 am
- Contact:
Re: Leng
This keeps getting talked about but never happens. What's the procedure? Council vote? Why doesn't someone just propose it to the Council already?
Scott Alexander | Autokrator of Archipelago (What is Archipelago?)
Illustrious Founder of the MCS, and sometime Special Cartographer
Illustrious Founder of the MCS, and sometime Special Cartographer
Re: Leng
No, that doesn't work. You might have had a point if Leng was constructed from a globe or was distorted appropriately at the poles, but it's not, it was designed on and for a flat map. As it is, it looks like a freaking ribbon on a polar projection. I would be pleased if the map was distorted appropriately at the poles with the sinusoidal projection that we have.Ryan wrote:Geographically, polar projection has no bearing whatsoever on the practical argument of whether Leng should be kept or not. Greenland is enlarged to several times its actual size on a mercator projection. Do we destroy Greenland because this isn't "aesthetically pleasing"? No. We make the best of it.
The same thing is true for the other islands that you added at the poles.
Re: Leng
Ah, I can never remember the names of continents besides Keltia.
I retract my former statement and replace it here with an opposing sentiment to my original one. If it's been there so long, what's the point in making it go away? Especially if it's been there longer than it hasn't.
I retract my former statement and replace it here with an opposing sentiment to my original one. If it's been there so long, what's the point in making it go away? Especially if it's been there longer than it hasn't.
His Incomparable Highness,
His Matchless Grace,
His Majestic Honor,
His Eminent Splendor,
His Chivalrous Eminence,
The Rook
Lord Protector of Uantir
His Matchless Grace,
His Majestic Honor,
His Eminent Splendor,
His Chivalrous Eminence,
The Rook
Lord Protector of Uantir
Re: Leng
Because it should have never been there in the first place.King Ailin of Uantir wrote:Ah, I can never remember the names of continents besides Keltia.
I retract my former statement and replace it here with an opposing sentiment to my original one. If it's been there so long, what's the point in making it go away? Especially if it's been there longer than it hasn't.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Leng
But it was put there and has stayed for years. It makes a hell of a lot more sense to "discover" an island covered in ice which was never previously known about than it is to have it suddenly and randomly disappear when it exists, nations claim it and people are living there.Bill3000 wrote:Because it should have never been there in the first place.
Also, with the projection and distortion points, islands can be all shapes and sizes, and created and shaped via tonnes of different processes. Maybe it shouldn't have been added/discovered originally, but disliking the shape of it isn't another reason to remove it.
And Scott, there's no actual procedure for removing land, because it doesn't happen. I suppose a Council vote wouldn't be a bad idea but I think in order for something this big and map-changing to go through, there'd have to be a unanimous decision and a logical story as to how it suddenly vanished from the map without anything else being affected which everyone agrees with. Although possible, that'd be highly unlikely to happen, as we've seen with the disagreements already...
- dr-spangle
- Technical Advisor
- Posts: 13072
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:20 pm
- Contact:
Re: Leng
Actually you're incorrect there, the charter says nothing about it needing to be unanimous, and it should be outlawed and decreed to be removed in an amendment to the charter, which requires either 50% of the council or 75% of member states to vote for it for it to pass...Craitman wrote:But it was put there and has stayed for years. It makes a hell of a lot more sense to "discover" an island covered in ice which was never previously known about than it is to have it suddenly and randomly disappear when it exists, nations claim it and people are living there.Bill3000 wrote:Because it should have never been there in the first place.
Also, with the projection and distortion points, islands can be all shapes and sizes, and created and shaped via tonnes of different processes. Maybe it shouldn't have been added/discovered originally, but disliking the shape of it isn't another reason to remove it.
And Scott, there's no actual procedure for removing land, because it doesn't happen. I suppose a Council vote wouldn't be a bad idea but I think in order for something this big and map-changing to go through, there'd have to be a unanimous decision and a logical story as to how it suddenly vanished from the map without anything else being affected which everyone agrees with. Although possible, that'd be highly unlikely to happen, as we've seen with the disagreements already...
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Leng
I'm not incorrect at all. I was giving my opinion, not quoting the charter.dr-spangle wrote:Actually you're incorrect there, the charter says nothing about it needing to be unanimous, and it should be outlawed and decreed to be removed in an amendment to the charter, which requires either 50% of the council or 75% of member states to vote for it for it to pass...
However, yeah, I know about how the charter itself can be changed, I was just talking about this change to the map specifically (without the charter being ammended) and what I feel is the best way for it to go through...
Re: Leng
If no one had a claim on it, and no one had interacted with Leng in all these years I'd say yeah, make it go away, but no matter if it was supposed to be there or not, it's here now and it's in use. Setting the precedent for getting 75% of the users or fifty of the staff to change the actual lay lines because you want the coast of your country more picturesque is a little silly.
His Incomparable Highness,
His Matchless Grace,
His Majestic Honor,
His Eminent Splendor,
His Chivalrous Eminence,
The Rook
Lord Protector of Uantir
His Matchless Grace,
His Majestic Honor,
His Eminent Splendor,
His Chivalrous Eminence,
The Rook
Lord Protector of Uantir
- Guido Zambelis
- Posts: 2854
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:26 pm
Re: Leng
The way I look at it, it's such a ridiculous addition that a removal would be no more ridiculous.