ICL/ALP merger
ICL/ALP merger
NewZimiaGov wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 7:48 pmName & Title: The Heavenlet Sulféu III and the Cereberi of the Iron Cult
E-Mail/Contact: Discord
Nation: Alperkin and Iron Cult of Leng ( Combining to become Bassarid Periphery)
No. of Citizens: 1
MN URL: https://micras.org/wiki/index.php?title ... _Periphery
Flag Image:
Claim:
Notes: The Iron Cult of Leng and the Heavenlet of Alperkin are two reasonably active,which play a similar role in the civilization I've developed here. They are both nations which practice a variant of Bassaridianism which is distinct enough that they can't quite fit into the mold of standard Bassarid society - neither recognizes the Priestess of Agripinilla as their supreme leader, and both recognize their own unique collection of gods and goddesses. They are Bassarid, but not Bassarid enough to be recognized as part of Bassarid society proper. They aren't Bassarid nations exactly, but nations which exist on the fringes of Bassaridia - on the periphery.
With all that said, I am combining these two nations into a single "new" nation which will be known as the Bassarid Periphery. The two states will still be governed independently of one another, and they'll still maintain their own rulers, but on the map itself they'll be regarded as one nation. This is done for the sake of convenience, and to better reflect the reality of the situation which is that these two nations play a specific role in the the context of my own worldbuilding.
Re: ICL/ALP merger
So, a new country needs to be active for over 30 days to get a claim. This includes when, for example, a province gets independence from a country. The independence isn't effected (for MCS purposes) until 30 days.
What do we do with mergers? On one hand, we can say that the Iron Cult of Leng annexes Alperkin, but is this a true reflexion of the events there? Similarly if Alperkin annexes the Iron Cult?
If so, I find that
- The Iron Cult does not have enough activity to warrant the annexation of Alperkin
- Alperkin does not have enough activity to warrant the annexation of the Iron Cult (its only edit, as far as I can see, is the addition of one picture and caption on the wiki page throughout the month of April)
So in that case, it would be a NAY.
Now, if we see this as a new country that takes over ICL and Alperkin, then it needs sufficient activity to warrant this claim. This activity would be measured from today up to one month from now (and can then include both ICL and Alperkin), and if we find sufficient activity has been made for these two countries, in conjunction with Periphery central activity, then we can make a reservation for it.
So my vote depends entirely on what the legal circumstances are. If I have missed any important activity for Alperkin and the Iron Cult, or the legal circumstances of the merger, I am happy to reconsider my decision. The onus, however, is on the applicant to prove sufficient activity and the legal situation.
What do we do with mergers? On one hand, we can say that the Iron Cult of Leng annexes Alperkin, but is this a true reflexion of the events there? Similarly if Alperkin annexes the Iron Cult?
If so, I find that
- The Iron Cult does not have enough activity to warrant the annexation of Alperkin
- Alperkin does not have enough activity to warrant the annexation of the Iron Cult (its only edit, as far as I can see, is the addition of one picture and caption on the wiki page throughout the month of April)
So in that case, it would be a NAY.
Now, if we see this as a new country that takes over ICL and Alperkin, then it needs sufficient activity to warrant this claim. This activity would be measured from today up to one month from now (and can then include both ICL and Alperkin), and if we find sufficient activity has been made for these two countries, in conjunction with Periphery central activity, then we can make a reservation for it.
So my vote depends entirely on what the legal circumstances are. If I have missed any important activity for Alperkin and the Iron Cult, or the legal circumstances of the merger, I am happy to reconsider my decision. The onus, however, is on the applicant to prove sufficient activity and the legal situation.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: ICL/ALP merger
Fortunately, mergers have a long standing on Micras (most recently the Thracis, Krasnocoria and the Bassarids) and are treated as an anomaly in the same way that successor states are. The arguably de jure factor is that we'd have a new MCS member, the de facto matter is that they already have membership twice over - it's almost as if the merging parties annex one another. I'd certainly ask for the entity of the Bassarid Periphery to have a focal article, or at least a category, on the wiki soon to tie them together, but the parts making the sum have already existed for over thirty days.
AYE...
AYE...
Re: ICL/ALP merger
With the activity for both ICL and Alperkin being so low, there is no activity basis for one of them annexing the other.
My vote for nay remains.
My vote for nay remains.
-
- Administrator General
- Posts: 4335
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:58 pm
- Location: Republic of Mercury
Re: ICL/ALP merger
I just don't think it's reasonable for two relatively small nations such a great distance apart to be part of the same country, NAY
Re: ICL/ALP merger
The distance is the hang up for me as well. Nay.