Breakaway States in the MCS?
Moderator: Staff
Breakaway States in the MCS?
Hiya,
I was discussing this with Spangle on MSN recently and got wondering- what is the MCS' position on breakaway states of member nations? As I understand it, the goal of the MCS is to portray the political situation on Micras as it unfolds and to realistically display it on the organisation's map- hence the symbols for disputed region, terrorist presence, war zone, and so forth.
Now, let's say that a region of an MCS member state broke away and exhibited a real, well thought-out, professional desire for independence, and had evidently gained the citizenry and cultural development required to rule the region it claimed as if it had joined the MCS as a new member. If the revolution for independence was successful, the government controlling the land would be ousted and the new seperatist authority would rule that area. Ergo, the land displayed in the MCS map would not be controlled at all by the nation's forces who had just been ousted from it.
Would that breakway statelet have to apply to the MCS seperately or would the MCS alter the maps accordingly to represent that nation as independent (yet of course using the disputed territory symbol), and therefore to accurately portray the political situation in that particular region of Micras?
See, my view would be that for the MCS not to at least show that the region in question was under dispute by two powers, it would be making a political statement about the independence of the breakway state, which to my mind contravenes the neutrality in such matters the MCS was supposed to uphold.
To bring RL politics into this- would the MCS portray Turkish Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states?
Cheers,
Max/Moshe
I was discussing this with Spangle on MSN recently and got wondering- what is the MCS' position on breakaway states of member nations? As I understand it, the goal of the MCS is to portray the political situation on Micras as it unfolds and to realistically display it on the organisation's map- hence the symbols for disputed region, terrorist presence, war zone, and so forth.
Now, let's say that a region of an MCS member state broke away and exhibited a real, well thought-out, professional desire for independence, and had evidently gained the citizenry and cultural development required to rule the region it claimed as if it had joined the MCS as a new member. If the revolution for independence was successful, the government controlling the land would be ousted and the new seperatist authority would rule that area. Ergo, the land displayed in the MCS map would not be controlled at all by the nation's forces who had just been ousted from it.
Would that breakway statelet have to apply to the MCS seperately or would the MCS alter the maps accordingly to represent that nation as independent (yet of course using the disputed territory symbol), and therefore to accurately portray the political situation in that particular region of Micras?
See, my view would be that for the MCS not to at least show that the region in question was under dispute by two powers, it would be making a political statement about the independence of the breakway state, which to my mind contravenes the neutrality in such matters the MCS was supposed to uphold.
To bring RL politics into this- would the MCS portray Turkish Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states?
Cheers,
Max/Moshe
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Breakaway States in the MCS?
Well, I've always thought it'd make more sense for break-away nations to claim separately (as long as it was all official and above-board) as all new nations are equal and all have to claim the same way.
Even disputed areas would need to be claimed, as such, as any changes to the map need to be voted on and any addition of symbols to a nation's claim would need to be submitted by that nation
Even disputed areas would need to be claimed, as such, as any changes to the map need to be voted on and any addition of symbols to a nation's claim would need to be submitted by that nation
Re: Breakaway States in the MCS?
But why vote on it?
Personally I'd say that it's the MCS's duty to portray the political situation on Micras as it is- it should therefore at least show that there are parts of a nation which are not controlled by that nation's central government during a civil war.
I would say that any breakway states would be shown as independent with disputed territory lines over them, and then when and if there's a settlement, they can then claim on the MCS. But they should be represented at least beforehand anyway.
Personally I'd say that it's the MCS's duty to portray the political situation on Micras as it is- it should therefore at least show that there are parts of a nation which are not controlled by that nation's central government during a civil war.
I would say that any breakway states would be shown as independent with disputed territory lines over them, and then when and if there's a settlement, they can then claim on the MCS. But they should be represented at least beforehand anyway.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Breakaway States in the MCS?
Yeah, that's fine by me. But if the nation the land currently belongs to doesn't submit a claim to show the disputed territory, it wouldn't be shown. And as it would only technically be a modification to the country in question's land, there's a very large chance it'd be accepted anyway - unless there was something majorly wrong with itMaximos wrote:I would say that any breakway states would be shown as independent with disputed territory lines over them, and then when and if there's a settlement, they can then claim on the MCS. But they should be represented at least beforehand anyway.
We're perfectly fine with changing regions to being disputed territories as long as the nation submits a claim to modify it as such, same as all modifications
- Colonel Vilhelm
- Apollo Foundation Administrator
- Posts: 2108
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:27 pm
- Location: Micras
- Contact:
Re: Breakaway States in the MCS?
I've always interpreted all of the symbols on the MCS map as being self-imposed. The terrorist one, dependency one and disputed territory one - those kinds of symbols - I see them as underused, but ultimately fulfilling the same function as the city/regional capital/capital symbols and the state boundaries and so on. Yes, the MCS does portray the political situation on Micras through the political claims map, but from the views of the claimants.Maximos wrote:But why vote on it?
Personally I'd say that it's the MCS's duty to portray the political situation on Micras as it is- it should therefore at least show that there are parts of a nation which are not controlled by that nation's central government during a civil war.
I would say that any breakway states would be shown as independent with disputed territory lines over them, and then when and if there's a settlement, they can then claim on the MCS. But they should be represented at least beforehand anyway.
The MCS Council and administration at large, I don't think, has any real say in determining the contents of a claim. Obviously, we do act to protect the community's sensibilities (by stopping obviously rude and offensive terms that don't contribute to national culture and are just there to start a flame war) and our history (AF, city/state name-stealing and so on). But aside from that, the Council is more a facilitator, an organiser, an administrator than some kind of international arbiter. Ours is not a role of judgement in affairs of power struggles, wars and independence movements.
When a decision has to be made - the example you give is a developed struggle for independence based on some kind of national cultural movement - the MCS acts as it always does, in favour of the 'defender', in favour of preserving the status quo. Same logic as when there is a draw in the Council - draws in votes lead to rejections, because if something is that contentious, it would not be prudent as a neutral organisation to rock the boat and shake things up.
Colonel Vilhelm von Benkern - Preserving the Memories (Regardless of whose those may be)
Pro at Cooking!
Antica
Pro at Cooking!
Antica
- Guido Zambelis
- Posts: 2854
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:26 pm
Re: Breakaway States in the MCS?
As I see it, break-aways have a right to be recognised: if land = activity (or rather inactivity = reductions), then because a breakaway has taken activity with it, it deserves that land.
Re: Breakaway States in the MCS?
I see... so the most difficult hurdle would be for the breakaway state to survive long enough for the MCS to approve its application and place it on the map?
I suppose of course the understanding would be that once/if the new state got defeated, its lands would revert back to the nation which owned it originally rather than becoming claimable land?
I suppose of course the understanding would be that once/if the new state got defeated, its lands would revert back to the nation which owned it originally rather than becoming claimable land?
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Breakaway States in the MCS?
Exactly. Although nowadays, the "age rule" isn't as much of a problem.Maximos wrote:I see... so the most difficult hurdle would be for the breakaway state to survive long enough for the MCS to approve its application and place it on the map?
Were the new state to be "defeated" by the nation which originally claimed the lands (and/or still does, at some level), then yes. If the new state were to become fully "independent" and then die of its own accord, then the land would be unclaimed after its removal (unless the two nations agreed a prior settlement that the land would revert back to the original claimant - such as that between Craitland and Enthdover)I suppose of course the understanding would be that once/if the new state got defeated, its lands would revert back to the nation which owned it originally rather than becoming claimable land?