Reduction proposal
Moderator: Staff
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Reduction proposal
*MOVED FROM ADMINISTRATIVE DISCUSSION*
A chat with Malliki tonight has made me think that the current rule for forced reductions is more or less not fit for purpose anymore. While forced removals rely on a clear-cut "zero activity for three months" line to be put through, reductions are still very much judged on forum activity alone.
The current line on reductions is any nation which receives under an average of 0.5 PPD for three consecutive months should be forced to lose land. This was changed from a 1 PPD minimum requirement as part of the 2014 Charter amendments which also saw us get rid of the three-month rule. The last forced reduction notice to be served, since this change in rules, came in 2015. However, that isn't to say that no nations have warranted a forced reduction since 2015, just the growth of the wiki and general community-wide move away from forums in the subsequent years has made judging such warranting very difficult.
I'm sure we can all point to one or two nations on the map right now and, looking at the cumulatively low amount of forum and wiki activity in the past three months, say that they're larger than they deserve to be. Sure, the handful of posts or infrequent edits they get are enough to keep them from being removed entirely, but we have no defined way of enforcing a reasonable loss of holdings.*
I may be on my own here, but I still think that reductions can have a place in how we run Micras - even if a forced one hasn't been passed in five years - if we can mould their enforcing around how we actually do things nowadays. Some nations may have completely deserved the land they now claim a few years ago thanks to consistent forum activity, but some current minimal wiki activity shouldn't be a loophole to help them keep it for perpetuity.
My immediate thought would be to bring in something to complement the existing forced removal threshold (i.e. two consecutive months with no activity leading to a reduction notice) but my next thought is then that the bare minimum just changes from three to two months where doing something will keep your land unscathed. The only other option I can think, if it was kept to be a quantitative factor, would be to judge the number and/or size of the edits a nation made over three months, which would be both 1. a near-endless task to undertake with the sheer amount of articles some nations now have, and 2. even more arbitrary than counting posts by their tally and not the quality of their content!
So the thing that I'm currently settling on (we'll see if I still feel the same in the morning) to propose to replace the rule is this: scrap it entirely and enact what would ultimately be a bit of a whistleblowing exercise. While forced removals will deal with the pure, hard statistics, let reductions be proposed in a vein similar to expansions, but by Council members. As I said before, we can all point to nations that probably have a bit too much land as it stands, so why not point in an official manner? Bring up any nations that you think fit the bill in this forum, and if two further Council members agree with you, we'll send them a reduction notice - if any group is going to be best equipped at noticing when nations have more land than they need, it's the same group that already judges whether they have enough whenever they ask for more!
* - Just to emphasise how useless the 0.5 PPD rule now is, its strict enforcement would deem nations with forums such as Elwynn, Batavia, Natopia and Sanpantul suitable for reduction despite them thriving, less merely surviving, in recent months.
A chat with Malliki tonight has made me think that the current rule for forced reductions is more or less not fit for purpose anymore. While forced removals rely on a clear-cut "zero activity for three months" line to be put through, reductions are still very much judged on forum activity alone.
The current line on reductions is any nation which receives under an average of 0.5 PPD for three consecutive months should be forced to lose land. This was changed from a 1 PPD minimum requirement as part of the 2014 Charter amendments which also saw us get rid of the three-month rule. The last forced reduction notice to be served, since this change in rules, came in 2015. However, that isn't to say that no nations have warranted a forced reduction since 2015, just the growth of the wiki and general community-wide move away from forums in the subsequent years has made judging such warranting very difficult.
I'm sure we can all point to one or two nations on the map right now and, looking at the cumulatively low amount of forum and wiki activity in the past three months, say that they're larger than they deserve to be. Sure, the handful of posts or infrequent edits they get are enough to keep them from being removed entirely, but we have no defined way of enforcing a reasonable loss of holdings.*
I may be on my own here, but I still think that reductions can have a place in how we run Micras - even if a forced one hasn't been passed in five years - if we can mould their enforcing around how we actually do things nowadays. Some nations may have completely deserved the land they now claim a few years ago thanks to consistent forum activity, but some current minimal wiki activity shouldn't be a loophole to help them keep it for perpetuity.
My immediate thought would be to bring in something to complement the existing forced removal threshold (i.e. two consecutive months with no activity leading to a reduction notice) but my next thought is then that the bare minimum just changes from three to two months where doing something will keep your land unscathed. The only other option I can think, if it was kept to be a quantitative factor, would be to judge the number and/or size of the edits a nation made over three months, which would be both 1. a near-endless task to undertake with the sheer amount of articles some nations now have, and 2. even more arbitrary than counting posts by their tally and not the quality of their content!
So the thing that I'm currently settling on (we'll see if I still feel the same in the morning) to propose to replace the rule is this: scrap it entirely and enact what would ultimately be a bit of a whistleblowing exercise. While forced removals will deal with the pure, hard statistics, let reductions be proposed in a vein similar to expansions, but by Council members. As I said before, we can all point to nations that probably have a bit too much land as it stands, so why not point in an official manner? Bring up any nations that you think fit the bill in this forum, and if two further Council members agree with you, we'll send them a reduction notice - if any group is going to be best equipped at noticing when nations have more land than they need, it's the same group that already judges whether they have enough whenever they ask for more!
* - Just to emphasise how useless the 0.5 PPD rule now is, its strict enforcement would deem nations with forums such as Elwynn, Batavia, Natopia and Sanpantul suitable for reduction despite them thriving, less merely surviving, in recent months.
-
- Administrator General
- Posts: 4333
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:58 pm
- Location: Republic of Mercury
Re: Reduction proposal
I think, as a basis, if we just reassess how we judge claims, it can be used in all these situations. We currently all have our own criteria for voting on things, which is a benefit of having a Council, but in a way, it's also a drawback of having a Council. Although we do generally tend to agree on things, I feel like there's an element of "that's how it's always been done, I'd better go along with it" at times, that defeats the point. I think it would be beneficial to us to have a set list of criteria that we all agree to take into consideration, but we can all apply our own weights to how important we think they are.
My suggestions would be something like
In terms of judging reductions, we can look at the same thing, do they still meet the criteria we voted on when they last claimed? Do they miss it narrowly, in which case, we might grant them some leniency? Or have they just given up entirely, and we might look at reducing or removing, with a certain grace period guaranteed, but other than that, discretion of individual members, rather than a strict "it's been three months, kill them"?
It's certainly preferable to looking at the number of forum posts a wiki nation has made
My suggestions would be something like
- Internal development (basically, what we already look at)
- Community involvement (do they get involved in a positive way? Do they isolate? Are they just an ass to everyone for no justifiable reason?)
- Community standing (proven nations, that have always used what they claim, not whinged when an expansion wasn't accepted, makes an effort to be respected, long-standing members etc.)
- Geopolitical realism (yes, you might have a good reason to claim a territory miles from anywhere, we'd like to hear it please)
In terms of judging reductions, we can look at the same thing, do they still meet the criteria we voted on when they last claimed? Do they miss it narrowly, in which case, we might grant them some leniency? Or have they just given up entirely, and we might look at reducing or removing, with a certain grace period guaranteed, but other than that, discretion of individual members, rather than a strict "it's been three months, kill them"?
It's certainly preferable to looking at the number of forum posts a wiki nation has made
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Reduction proposal
Okay, I'm pretty sure everyone on the Council is also in the Discord server, so I'll stave-off summarising what we spoke about last night in light of this thread!
So, addressing Joe's post, the Charter lists the following in regards to the Council's judgement of claims:
With absolute removals, I think it'd be hard to find anyone who says a nation that has done nothing at all in three successive months is dead, so I'm fine with keeping that as a definite rule, but it may help to look at how we define "nothing". As it stands, a nondescript something keeps you on the map, so the most basic of edits on the wiki - whilst maybe not stopping a reduction on the above considerations - means the nation will still remain a member. But what if all they've done for the past six months is change a few numbers, or reworded a sentence; is that nation really alive anymore? If pure "activity" is taken out of the judging criteria, arguably no - no cultural development, governing, collaborating nor using of current claims has gone down in this time, should they go?
Of course, I favour the "grace" period, so if they did go and then got their arse in gear once more - to a standard that should be represented on the map (new articles, expanding stubs, artistic efforts, etc.) - they can return to their old lands, or at least a percentage thereof. A jump from "nothing" to that level of development would take some effort, sure, but isn't effort the thing we've been overlooking when judging claims all along?
So, addressing Joe's post, the Charter lists the following in regards to the Council's judgement of claims:
Other than dropping the "activity" factor, as brilliantly vague that's been all these years, there's nothing too different there I don't think. Not considering activity might sound a little drastic, but we have had times where expansions have been given the benefit of the doubt for being "long overdue", so it's not beyond the realms of consideration that a nation would want to expand after a quiet month despite the previous few being filled with top-notch stuff - that recent lull shouldn't completely undermine the earlier good work, right? Conversely, if they've done little-to-none of the above for a few months in a row and want to expand, that's a different matter and probably shouldn't be accepted.How do I know, the Charter tells me so wrote:(4) A Council Member should, when voting on a claim request, consider whether the overall development of the nation in question merits the addition of the area being claimed, taking into particular account:
(a) activity,
(b) cultural development,
(c) internal government,
(d) international collaboration,
(f) history and
(g) use of current claims.
That's pretty much how I'd envision judging reductions to go down, but with the condition that any Council member should be able to come along and say "I don't think Examplestan are pulling their weight, should we reduce them?" without needing to rely on useless ForumCheck data or for the month to begin.Joe wrote:In terms of judging reductions, we can look at the same thing, do they still meet the criteria we voted on when they last claimed? Do they miss it narrowly, in which case, we might grant them some leniency? Or have they just given up entirely, and we might look at reducing or removing, with a certain grace period guaranteed, but other than that, discretion of individual members, rather than a strict "it's been three months, kill them"?
With absolute removals, I think it'd be hard to find anyone who says a nation that has done nothing at all in three successive months is dead, so I'm fine with keeping that as a definite rule, but it may help to look at how we define "nothing". As it stands, a nondescript something keeps you on the map, so the most basic of edits on the wiki - whilst maybe not stopping a reduction on the above considerations - means the nation will still remain a member. But what if all they've done for the past six months is change a few numbers, or reworded a sentence; is that nation really alive anymore? If pure "activity" is taken out of the judging criteria, arguably no - no cultural development, governing, collaborating nor using of current claims has gone down in this time, should they go?
Of course, I favour the "grace" period, so if they did go and then got their arse in gear once more - to a standard that should be represented on the map (new articles, expanding stubs, artistic efforts, etc.) - they can return to their old lands, or at least a percentage thereof. A jump from "nothing" to that level of development would take some effort, sure, but isn't effort the thing we've been overlooking when judging claims all along?
Re: Reduction proposal
I think forcing reduction is an excellent way to force members out of the community. And I'm not sure there is a good reason for it either. There is enough green available for new claims and a few months of relative inactivity are to be expected in any nation.
Re: Reduction proposal
Why should a nation keep a huge claim without maintaining it?
Re: Reduction proposal
If it wouldn't maintain it, it would be removed, not reduced.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Reduction proposal
Why do you think reductions would specifically force people away from Micras but not removals?
Re: Reduction proposal
Because a reduction is done when someone is still busy with their project, but can't do all the work the community seems to expect. The decision will be much more subjective, and not all nations will feel that they are going to be treated the same.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Reduction proposal
So ultimately what we want to discern with this is when people are genuinely busy with their project. That's where the subjectivity is actually a boon.
By the current rule (if we just take forums into account for argument's sake), a nation could face a reduction if their activity focused on a small number of long, content-rich posts. However, a nation whose citizens do nothing but repeat the same word over and over enough times to meet the 0.5 PPD level every few months wouldn't be removed. Would that first nation feel like we're treating them the same, or would they rather that we focused more on the quality of the content instead of the bare numbers?
The Council's subjectivity here would let us understand that the first nation shouldn't be reduced, but, also, if that second nation had a huge claim we can see they're not really sustaining it either...
Re: Reduction proposal
I'd rather go by the interpretation of 1 post = 1 minute of subjective activity as a minimum (like adding a word to the wiki or posting anything, however insignifciant, on a forum)
So that means that for removals of countries on the MCS map, the following would be rules:
If it has had less than 0.5 ppd for three months, MCS is authorized to reduce. Translated to minutes of subjective activity, it would mean any kind of activity that is below 45 minutes of activity over a three-month period, or 15 minutes of measurable activity per month.
Measurable activity could be anything in one's wiki category, ones forums, etc.
I think we can be quite liberal in what is subjective activity. A word here and there 15 times could be interpreted as 15 mins of subjective activity.
So that means that for removals of countries on the MCS map, the following would be rules:
If it has had less than 0.5 ppd for three months, MCS is authorized to reduce. Translated to minutes of subjective activity, it would mean any kind of activity that is below 45 minutes of activity over a three-month period, or 15 minutes of measurable activity per month.
Measurable activity could be anything in one's wiki category, ones forums, etc.
I think we can be quite liberal in what is subjective activity. A word here and there 15 times could be interpreted as 15 mins of subjective activity.
Re: Reduction proposal
I would support leaving it up to the judgement of the council because the relative value of land occupied by the inactive nation differs greatly. Take for instance Caradia, which seems to have gone a bit inactive. I would not favour reductions until it is clear that the land would serve a better purpose. If, however, a country in a coveted area such as Benacia would reach a state of inactivity, I would favour a reduction.
In general, as long as the Green still is the largest country, I would not favour to harsh a reduction policy.
- edit: apologies for the intrusion, as a former member I appear to still have the right to post here. Do with this perspective of a simple claimant what you wish
In general, as long as the Green still is the largest country, I would not favour to harsh a reduction policy.
- edit: apologies for the intrusion, as a former member I appear to still have the right to post here. Do with this perspective of a simple claimant what you wish
Porque las estirpes condenadas a cien años de soledad no tenían una segunda oportunidad sobre la tierra.
Re: Reduction proposal
I think this is a fact worth remembering, it's not like we have an issue with space in terms of areas for new nations to claim or even for other nations to expand into. I've also previously asked for nations to ok expansion for other nations when it would have affected their ability to expand (see when Floria expanded next to Alrig).Jack wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 7:52 pmI would support leaving it up to the judgement of the council because the relative value of land occupied by the inactive nation differs greatly. Take for instance Caradia, which seems to have gone a bit inactive. I would not favour reductions until it is clear that the land would serve a better purpose. If, however, a country in a coveted area such as Benacia would reach a state of inactivity, I would favour a reduction.
In general, as long as the Green still is the largest country, I would not favour to harsh a reduction policy.
The first point Jack brings up is important too. The Bassarids hoarding land on Corum and Keltia doesn't really matter because those aren't coveted areas, but it is worth bearing in mind the shape of territories (for instance, inland areas are claimed less by new nations so sprawling oceanic empires claiming loads of tiny islands could be off putting).
I think we need to be careful about being too quantitative, especially as some activity can be hidden (think hidden forums and discord servers, which can both hide productive activity but also shield spamming random words to increase a post count), so I think the council should take into account a more qualitative approach that would better allow us to look into what each nation does.Ric wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 5:53 pmIf it has had less than 0.5 ppd for three months, MCS is authorized to reduce. Translated to minutes of subjective activity, it would mean any kind of activity that is below 45 minutes of activity over a three-month period, or 15 minutes of measurable activity per month.
Measurable activity could be anything in one's wiki category, ones forums, etc.
I think we can be quite liberal in what is subjective activity. A word here and there 15 times could be interpreted as 15 mins of subjective activity.