Hub.mn

This statement right here:

Thorgils Tarjeisson wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:10 pm

Frankly mate, your efforts deserve to be whitewashed.

is a blunt, outright admission of the motivations behind this claim. That says it all. You don't like how my work impacts you, so rather than working to find an actual solution, you're acting out of spite. You've shown your true colors. Here I thought we actually got on with each other.

NewZimiaGov wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:03 pm

Sure, and at one point the MCS actually judged claims on the basis of quality and work. Again, I don't give a shit that Natopia is claiming this land. I'm pissed off at how it's being done.

Are you saying we don't now? Natopia's overall land holdings were gained, I'm sure you'd agree, fairly enough, so if they wish to exchange a portion of their existing land to be able to expand to a similarly-sized plot elsewhere, that's perfectly reasonable and is such a common occurrence that your own nations have taken that same route when changing borders before now too...

Craitman wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:17 pm

Are you saying we don't now? Natopia's overall land holdings were gained, I'm sure you'd agree, fairly enough, so if they wish to exchange a portion of their existing land to be able to expand to a similarly-sized plot elsewhere, that's perfectly reasonable and is such a common occurrence that your own nations have taken that same route when changing borders before now too...

I am saying that with respect to this particular claim, you obviously are not. No work has gone into this claim. Despite abundant opportunity to stake a claim over the past month or so, they have actively avoided staking any sort of claim at all. They have allowed their enemies to run absolutely rampant in all of these lands And yet they claim the land as if their enemies don't even exist at all, and that there hasn't been any opportunity for development on this front at all at any point in recent history. We've been fighting a war on this front for quite a while now, and yet they haven't made any effort at all to establish a position in any of these places. Not one, for a whole month. Do they have any development in these regions from before a month ago? Nope. Apparently not. And yet, they have two votes in favor - maybe even three by the time I finish posting this. Why are you voting in favor? What have they done to deserve this, or to warrant such an out-of-the-blue expansion-style modification? In my opinion as a person who actually cares about investing in one's projects, they've done absolutely nothing. But hey, I'm not a council member.

Edit:

Craitman wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:17 pm

...that's perfectly reasonable and is such a common occurrence that your own nations have taken that same route when changing borders before now too...

It is perfectly reasonable when there is a good, realistic reason for it. In this case there isn't one. Quite the opposite. The motivations for this trade seem more spiteful than creative. That doesn't set a good precedent.

NewZimiaGov wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:38 pm

I am saying that with respect to this particular claim, you obviously are not. No work has gone into this claim.

That they've submitted it is more work than anyone else has put it to actually claim the land. If your fighting a war in this place was a premise for claiming it, then you've missed the boat (assuming that aforementioned third "aye" comes) - that's how it is. If, however, you were fighting a war to stop expansions such as this, maybe some forewarning could mean the MCS can play along with the story, but as we received no contact in that regard, we judge the claim using the same criteria as ever, and there is no reason to deny this as far as I'm concerned - unrelated people's work in land they don't claim doesn't factor, no matter how much they deem themselves to care about the hobby compared to everyone else...

Craitman wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:47 pm

That they've submitted it is more work than anyone else has put it to actually claim the land. If your fighting a war in this place was a premise for claiming it, then you've missed the boat (assuming that aforementioned third "aye" comes) - that's how it is. If, however, you were fighting a war to stop expansions such as this, maybe some forewarning could mean the MCS can play along with the story, but as we received no contact in that regard, we judge the claim using the same criteria as ever, and there is no reason to deny this as far as I'm concerned - unrelated people's work in land they don't claim doesn't factor, no matter how much they deem themselves to care about the hobby compared to everyone else...

My complaint has nothing to do with whether I wanted to claim the land. If I wanted to claim the lands then I obviously would have done that. I don't need to claim the land to continue doing what I was doing before it was claimed. The fact is that Natopia are submitting this claim not only without evidence in support of the work they've done to justify it, but in active spite of the opportunities which have been presented to do the work which should be necessary. But it is nice to know that the absolute bare minimum for effort is in fact the absolutle bare minimum, I guess...

NewZimiaGov wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:59 pm

My complaint has nothing to do with whether I wanted to claim the land. If I wanted to claim the lands then I obviously would have done that.

Then what are you complaining about? What specifically about this claim means they didn't put in the right level of work to be acceptable to you that, say, Treisenberg's recent (pretty much identical) land shift did to make it safe from your criticism? If we are to believe this isn't a personal gripe about how it affects your work (as you just said), why not say the same there when Treisenberg is considerably less active than Natopia?

Craitman wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:06 am

NewZimiaGov wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:59 pm

My complaint has nothing to do with whether I wanted to claim the land. If I wanted to claim the lands then I obviously would have done that.

Then what are you complaining about? What specifically about this claim means they didn't put in the right level of work to be acceptable to you that, say, Treisenberg's recent (pretty much identical) land shift did to make it safe from your criticism? If we are to believe this isn't a personal gripe about how it affects your work (as you just said), why not say the same there when Treisenberg is considerably less active than Natopia?

I would obviously call upon the MCS to adopt the same higher standards for all nations. I simply wasn't particularly familiar with the situation you describe, whereas I am incredibly intimately familiar with the situation at hand. A nation should require evidence of a well-developed reason to adjust their borders in this manner. This is, again, an expansion-style modification, which should be treated more as an expansion than a modification, and which should therefore require more effort than a mere internal modification. For what it's worth, my own active claim is the same type of modification. The difference is that mine is backed by evidence of effort.

NewZimiaGov wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:10 am

I would obviously call upon the MCS to adopt the same higher standards for all nations.

I'm not sure which "higher standards" you refer to. We judge every nation's claims equally; nobody receives preferential or detrimental treatment. I appreciate what you say regarding this type of modification requiring more scrutiny than an internal one, but that's why we're voting on it - internal modifications pass automatically - just that there's no requirement of boosted activity to back it up as a genuine expansion would need.

For what it's worth, my own active claim is the same type of modification. The difference is that mine is backed by evidence of effort.

Well, the difference is that they're not close to the same type of modification, really

Craitman wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:20 am

I'm not sure which "higher standards" you refer to. We judge every nation's claims equally; nobody receives preferential or detrimental treatment. I appreciate what you say regarding this type of modification requiring more scrutiny than an internal one, but that's why we're voting on it - internal modifications pass automatically - just that there's no requirement of boosted activity to back it up as a genuine expansion would need.
...
Well, the difference is that they're not close to the same type of modification, really

The higher standards which require that a nation puts effort into developing new territory before they claim it. But you're right, and I haven't given you credit for the fact that it's actually being voted on.

They are similar claims insofar as in both cases they are both effectively expansions which are being framed as modifications. In both cases, nations are claiming territory to which they did not formerly enjoy ownership. They aren't identical, but they are similar in this respect.

NewZimiaGov wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:37 am

They are similar claims insofar as in both cases they are both effectively expansions which are being framed as modifications. In both cases, nations are claiming territory to which they did not formerly enjoy ownership. They aren't identical, but they are similar in this respect.

Ah yes, I see where you're coming from there, though fundamentally merging two nations and rejigging one nation's borders are quite different animals

Indeed, that's why I say they're similar but not identical. That said, it seems to me that we might need a third type of claim, which falls somewhere between expansion and modification.

If we can portmanteau "expansion" and "reduction" into a new fancy buzzword, we might have a goer!

I think "expeduction" sounds pretty cool. Rolls off the tongue fairly well.