Constancia Claim May '17
Moderator: Staff
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 6:29 am
Constancia Claim May '17
Name & Title: Petros III, Basileus
E-Mail/Contact: PM here or on Bastion
Nation: Constancia
Request:
Notes: There are honestly several reasons for this claim. Firstly it is part of a scenario/storyline that has already been started, which will unfold over the coming weeks. Then I felt this has been a needed change and also the last being the tiny colonies expansion from an year ago. I have to be honest with the council that probably not all land will remain Constancian in the long term since as I said this is part of a developing plan. All changes, of course, will be submitted for consideration to the MCS.
E-Mail/Contact: PM here or on Bastion
Nation: Constancia
Request:
Notes: There are honestly several reasons for this claim. Firstly it is part of a scenario/storyline that has already been started, which will unfold over the coming weeks. Then I felt this has been a needed change and also the last being the tiny colonies expansion from an year ago. I have to be honest with the council that probably not all land will remain Constancian in the long term since as I said this is part of a developing plan. All changes, of course, will be submitted for consideration to the MCS.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21546
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Constancia Claim May '17
Are there any cities you want to add to it, even if it's just turning the ruins back into active settlements?
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 6:29 am
Re: Constancia Claim May '17
Indeed!
Since I guess the rules allow only one official name, if you could rename Rasal to Hatrecht and Kenmare to Gravenbosch that would be amazing! Could the rest stay as ruins for now?
Since I guess the rules allow only one official name, if you could rename Rasal to Hatrecht and Kenmare to Gravenbosch that would be amazing! Could the rest stay as ruins for now?
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21546
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Constancia Claim May '17
Certainly. Although places can have as many names as you like, we're kinda restricted on space, so one's normally most helpful
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 6:29 am
Re: Constancia Claim May '17
In response to Gerenia's concerns, I'll post a few links that can be of help:
http://bastionunion.org/forum/viewtopic ... 60&t=19460
http://bastionunion.org/forum/viewtopic ... 44&t=19465
http://bastionunion.org/forum/viewtopic ... 27&t=19438
http://bastionunion.org/forum/viewtopic ... 83&t=19468
It is a developing story primarily in Constancia, having some side effects in Oranje. For the moment there is a growing conflict which has its reflections in other parts of the world as evident from the links. There will be some sort of a resolution which may involve SANE imposing some restrictions on that land on Constancia (due to the many crimes committed etc), or other changes - that will depend on how exactly the story unfolds, which I myself cannot predict in full certainty at the time. But in full honesty, as per Gerenia's request, that is what I have in mind.
http://bastionunion.org/forum/viewtopic ... 60&t=19460
http://bastionunion.org/forum/viewtopic ... 44&t=19465
http://bastionunion.org/forum/viewtopic ... 27&t=19438
http://bastionunion.org/forum/viewtopic ... 83&t=19468
It is a developing story primarily in Constancia, having some side effects in Oranje. For the moment there is a growing conflict which has its reflections in other parts of the world as evident from the links. There will be some sort of a resolution which may involve SANE imposing some restrictions on that land on Constancia (due to the many crimes committed etc), or other changes - that will depend on how exactly the story unfolds, which I myself cannot predict in full certainty at the time. But in full honesty, as per Gerenia's request, that is what I have in mind.
Re: Constancia Claim May '17
I think there's some inconsistency in how this claim is being judged. There are nations on the map larger than Constancia is currently with fewer overall posts, including a brand new nation.
Currently playing:
Nathan, a person
Nathan, a person
-
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:39 am
Re: Constancia Claim May '17
There is nothing inconsistent about it. The council votes on the basis of sustained activity, no? Not on the basis of overall number of posts. Constancia haven't really had a lot of sustained activity lately.with fewer overall posts
""YJD: Een Recwar is prima zolang Bijaro niet deelneemt."
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 6:29 am
Re: Constancia Claim May '17
Thank you Nathan!
On that note, I want to voice my concern on the way votes have been cast so far. In doing so, I want to make clear that I seek to make no enemies with anyone, but simply justify why this is the expression I (and maybe others) have got. In order to avoid confronting people, but still respond to concerns raised, I will use the arguments stated and not the name of those who have made them.
A concern has been expressed about one of the reasons why this claim is submitted, namely as it being part of a broader story. In response, I have added references to all the information I currently have.
A concern has been expressed that Constancia's activity is not sustained to justify doubling the country's land. I shall address this as two different points:
1) Firstly, referring to the post count of Constancia, it currently stands at 479 (and was 454 at the time the last check was conducted). In order to submit claims which are justifiable and fair, I have attempted to compare this with other nations of similar size. Without any intention of making conflict by naming them, I explicitly stress out that they are chosen purely on the post count and activity information available to the MCS and no other preference. These include Gerenia, Mercury, Pontus, Vyktory, Gotzborg (which has had low activity for a long time, saying that as a citizen myself), amongst others - all of which are much bigger in land size than Constancia. Also with the mere intention of providing background information, I could not ignore an entirely new nation being allowed land perhaps 4-5 bigger than what Constancia currently has.
2) Secondly, I think the argument about not having sustained activity is (with my respect) unjustified. There have been no jumps or lows in the activity Constancia has had for the last year (and more). It is actually the case of the country growing steadily over that period, rather than jumping here and there in any arbitrary week or so.
Lastly, I think it would be unfair to punish Constancia for simply being modest in terms of land (hence the doubling in size argument).
Based on that information, I would ask the Council to re-think its currently cast votes for the sake of fairness and objectivity. Thank you!
On that note, I want to voice my concern on the way votes have been cast so far. In doing so, I want to make clear that I seek to make no enemies with anyone, but simply justify why this is the expression I (and maybe others) have got. In order to avoid confronting people, but still respond to concerns raised, I will use the arguments stated and not the name of those who have made them.
A concern has been expressed about one of the reasons why this claim is submitted, namely as it being part of a broader story. In response, I have added references to all the information I currently have.
A concern has been expressed that Constancia's activity is not sustained to justify doubling the country's land. I shall address this as two different points:
1) Firstly, referring to the post count of Constancia, it currently stands at 479 (and was 454 at the time the last check was conducted). In order to submit claims which are justifiable and fair, I have attempted to compare this with other nations of similar size. Without any intention of making conflict by naming them, I explicitly stress out that they are chosen purely on the post count and activity information available to the MCS and no other preference. These include Gerenia, Mercury, Pontus, Vyktory, Gotzborg (which has had low activity for a long time, saying that as a citizen myself), amongst others - all of which are much bigger in land size than Constancia. Also with the mere intention of providing background information, I could not ignore an entirely new nation being allowed land perhaps 4-5 bigger than what Constancia currently has.
2) Secondly, I think the argument about not having sustained activity is (with my respect) unjustified. There have been no jumps or lows in the activity Constancia has had for the last year (and more). It is actually the case of the country growing steadily over that period, rather than jumping here and there in any arbitrary week or so.
Lastly, I think it would be unfair to punish Constancia for simply being modest in terms of land (hence the doubling in size argument).
Based on that information, I would ask the Council to re-think its currently cast votes for the sake of fairness and objectivity. Thank you!
Re: Constancia Claim May '17
I agree that this claim should be allowed.
Formerly His Imperial Niftiness Yardistanislaus du Grifos, former Kaiser of Shireroth
Now just Vilhelm Benkern, Count of Mar Sara
Suzerain of Hawshire // Peil̊åkti an Ixraǔtn | Protector of the Safir // Xonuti Shawa 'allumi Sanilla'i'i | King of the Free State of Sanilla
Now just Vilhelm Benkern, Count of Mar Sara
Suzerain of Hawshire // Peil̊åkti an Ixraǔtn | Protector of the Safir // Xonuti Shawa 'allumi Sanilla'i'i | King of the Free State of Sanilla
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21546
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Constancia Claim May '17
I swear I remember a time where we used to finish voting on claims before the results were scrutinised - there's every possibility this could still be accepted yet!
As for responding to the points aired, I'll do my best to succinctly cover why my vote was cast the way it was. In regards to activity, as NewZimiaGov (to use his display name) pointed out, we judge activity based on the increase of post count over time, not as a whole figure. A nation with under 1,000 total posts but adding 100+ each month will be more likely to have an expansion accepted than one with 45,000 total posts of which 99% were posted years ago, par exemple extrême.
The Council also deals with claims on a case-by-case basis; that is to say (bar times where multiple nations claim the same land simultaneously), other nations' claims are not taken into account when voting on another's. In a similar vein, we judge expansions based on the time in which they are submitted, so, while a nation with similar activity to yours may now claim more land, that is considerably likely due to the fact they expanded in the past when their activity was higher. Nations can sustain a claim with less activity than when they gained the land as well, as essentially every nation (including Constancia) can evidence, having experienced dips in activity post-expansion. I'll add that new nation claims are somewhat incomparable to expansions as well.
By "sustained activity", the implication is that the activity is of a high enough level to support gaining land. While you are right in saying Constancia's levels of activity are sustained, they are by definition low levels. From the past three months' checks, only March's was above a PPD level of 0.5 (the threshold for discretionary forced reduction if not met for three consecutive months; essentially, Constancia was two posts away from risking losing land, let alone gaining any), with only two posts recorded for May's. From this data, I cannot justify lending my support to an expansion.
I can appreciate your emotional ties to this expansion claim, and the designs on creating a new project with Oranje, both of which have clearly supplied Constancia with an increase in activity in the past few days ahead of June's post count next week. If these activity levels can be sustained for another month, I'd be more than happy to believe the expansion is justified. Another approach you can also take, as Barnaby mentioned in his vote post, is to adjust this claim before it's denied to be smaller and therefore more likely to be accepted with current activity.
I hope that makes my train of thought more clear in deciding to vote against this expansion, and how I feel is best to proceed with it
As for responding to the points aired, I'll do my best to succinctly cover why my vote was cast the way it was. In regards to activity, as NewZimiaGov (to use his display name) pointed out, we judge activity based on the increase of post count over time, not as a whole figure. A nation with under 1,000 total posts but adding 100+ each month will be more likely to have an expansion accepted than one with 45,000 total posts of which 99% were posted years ago, par exemple extrême.
The Council also deals with claims on a case-by-case basis; that is to say (bar times where multiple nations claim the same land simultaneously), other nations' claims are not taken into account when voting on another's. In a similar vein, we judge expansions based on the time in which they are submitted, so, while a nation with similar activity to yours may now claim more land, that is considerably likely due to the fact they expanded in the past when their activity was higher. Nations can sustain a claim with less activity than when they gained the land as well, as essentially every nation (including Constancia) can evidence, having experienced dips in activity post-expansion. I'll add that new nation claims are somewhat incomparable to expansions as well.
By "sustained activity", the implication is that the activity is of a high enough level to support gaining land. While you are right in saying Constancia's levels of activity are sustained, they are by definition low levels. From the past three months' checks, only March's was above a PPD level of 0.5 (the threshold for discretionary forced reduction if not met for three consecutive months; essentially, Constancia was two posts away from risking losing land, let alone gaining any), with only two posts recorded for May's. From this data, I cannot justify lending my support to an expansion.
I can appreciate your emotional ties to this expansion claim, and the designs on creating a new project with Oranje, both of which have clearly supplied Constancia with an increase in activity in the past few days ahead of June's post count next week. If these activity levels can be sustained for another month, I'd be more than happy to believe the expansion is justified. Another approach you can also take, as Barnaby mentioned in his vote post, is to adjust this claim before it's denied to be smaller and therefore more likely to be accepted with current activity.
I hope that makes my train of thought more clear in deciding to vote against this expansion, and how I feel is best to proceed with it
Re: Constancia Claim May '17
I think a better way of judging claims is to look at what the claimant nation plans to do with the land, rather than just activity. For example, Stormark claims large chuncks of land, even though there is no storyline on how the land was won, or why it became part of Stormark. The same goes for Alexandria. Yet, these already massive nations get a waiver every time they claim some land.
Porque las estirpes condenadas a cien años de soledad no tenían una segunda oportunidad sobre la tierra.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21546
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Constancia Claim May '17
Of course, as you're aware as a Council member, we take a number of factors into account when judging claims. Plans for utilising the land being claimed are indeed important, but can equally come to nothing and leave the expansion unwarranted.Jack wrote:I think a better way of judging claims is to look at what the claimant nation plans to do with the land, rather than just activity.
I'll join the Alexandrians in a chuckle on this point, given the previous publicising of their belief that their claims have also been unfairly judged on multiple times in the past! As for Stormark (again reïterating the case-by-case basis point), their expansions are generally rather infrequent nowadays (this month's was their first in over a year) and on prior occasions they have also relented lands (see also: Passio-Corum), leaving a smaller overall net gain. In comparison to Constancia, Stormark's activity has been up to 360 times theirs in recent months, included in which is certainly more story line or explanation.For example, Stormark claims large chuncks of land, even though there is no storyline on how the land was won, or why it became part of Stormark. The same goes for Alexandria. Yet, these already massive nations get a waiver every time they claim some land.
You're still welcome to vote on this claims as it stands, too; it's neither on hold nor completed yet...
Re: Constancia Claim May '17
This thread shows why Craitgod is the Craitgod, and no mere Craitman.
I still hope this claim should pass because it will encourage a nascent bud of activity and development on Micras which it is the implicit duty of this Society to safeguard and facilitate.
I still hope this claim should pass because it will encourage a nascent bud of activity and development on Micras which it is the implicit duty of this Society to safeguard and facilitate.
Formerly His Imperial Niftiness Yardistanislaus du Grifos, former Kaiser of Shireroth
Now just Vilhelm Benkern, Count of Mar Sara
Suzerain of Hawshire // Peil̊åkti an Ixraǔtn | Protector of the Safir // Xonuti Shawa 'allumi Sanilla'i'i | King of the Free State of Sanilla
Now just Vilhelm Benkern, Count of Mar Sara
Suzerain of Hawshire // Peil̊åkti an Ixraǔtn | Protector of the Safir // Xonuti Shawa 'allumi Sanilla'i'i | King of the Free State of Sanilla
Re: Constancia Claim May '17
I'd rather see a story about a military campaign, which Constancia has shown us to be capable off, than hundreds of posts filled with soft porn, smileys and viking ships.Craitman wrote: I'll join the Alexandrians in a chuckle on this point, given the previous publicising of their belief that their claims have also been unfairly judged on multiple times in the past! As for Stormark (again reïterating the case-by-case basis point), their expansions are generally rather infrequent nowadays (this month's was their first in over a year) and on prior occasions they have also relented lands (see also: Passio-Corum), leaving a smaller overall net gain. In comparison to Constancia, Stormark's activity has been up to 360 times theirs in recent months, included in which is certainly more story line or explanation.
Porque las estirpes condenadas a cien años de soledad no tenían una segunda oportunidad sobre la tierra.
Re: Constancia Claim May '17
I don't really think we should be in the business of saying that nations should have to do certain stuff with the land that they claim. Stormark (from what I gather, I'll admit that I don't check nations' forums regularly) seem to place emphasis on culture rather than storyline, which is what I gather Constancia (and other Bastion nations) seem to focus on. I don't think it's necessary to write up a whole article or story to justify a claim.