Consultation on updating the Charter
Moderator: Staff
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
I echo what my friends on the council have said and want to touch on a word Arky keeps using: "concrete". This is a hobby of average folks making extraordinary nations, with dragons, space fleets, genocides on comical proportions, moon trees, floating armor warfare, and giant flying hamsters that will bite an aircraft in two. There's not much that's concrete in our corner of micronations, so we have to rely on our own and other's suspension of disbelieve. The councils role is, in this way, to make sure that the claim (no matter how fantastical or mundane) can be rectified with the collective narrative of the sector. The council and the charter are here to encourage an environment where everyone can enjoy their nation as much as the next guy through the MCS.
-
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:33 am
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
I've already expressed some of this in my reaction to Joe. But I'd still like to comment on the content:
And this is exactly what I'm struggling with. Even more than is the case now, every procedure is wrapped up in all kinds of rules. The degree of "computer says no" only increases.Craitman wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 8:20 pmThank you, that's a bit more to chew over. I'll respond to each bullet point as much as I can below:
The part regarding the Junior nomination period is intended to formalise the procedure we already use for a vacancy when it arises. There would be no change to what we have been doing for this.
I mean that what you are doing now, without any obligation, is so crazy to publish a new version of the map every week, let it be recorded as a rule. Why?
I notice in Joe's answers that "substantial development" is not understood. Not to attack Joe, but I'm worried about it. The definition implies that a forum post or an edit of a Micras article is not sufficient.Craitman wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 8:20 pmThe removal of "activity" in our criteria for judging claims would remove the numbers aspect, meaning that claims would be voted on purely by qualitative merits. This is intended to give preference to higher quality development over things like the sheer number of edits or forum posts, which can ultimately be meaningless in content.
Well, that's a very negative thing to say. I understand the intention of the rule, but smaller subsequent claims or one-time larger claims, that does matter. That's not in the Charter. Customisation.Craitman wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 8:20 pmHonestly, yes, for me. If a nation can ping a load of small claims at us over, say, two weeks, that's a pretty unproductive approach to something which could have been collated and submitted together. Usually, claims submitted closely together are fine because they have legitimate reasons, but I don't think anyone on the Council would want to be obligated to vote on a succession of claims submitted by someone intentionally being a dick.
Is it realistic that Great Britain owns a piece of Spain? Or that France owns the island of Amsterdam in the Indian Ocean? Perhaps scattered claims are not desirable, it happens sometimes.Craitman wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 8:20 pmFor many of us, throughout the entire community, spread-out claims with no explanation aren't "realistic". It's a personal preference, as with every criterion by which we would judge claims. It's a factor that already gets considered to an extent, this addition just makes it an official thing claimants may want to look at before submitting their claim.
It concerns a balance between the goal of the organisation and the degree of power the organisation is given.
The community isn't that big, then you know how it is. Better not complain, so as not to get into trouble. And as I'm trying to make clear to Joe, not all Council meetings are public, so a complaint is not always concrete.Craitman wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 8:20 pmWe have the Complaints Desk where members are, and always have been, free to air any grievances. If any, for want of a better word, misdemeanours cause such outrage amongst the wider community that it's felt a Councillor should be dismissed, these changes to the Charter now give more power to our members in removing Councillors, requiring a smaller majority in a vote of no confidence.
As I reacted to Joe, I missed that.
I don't think you need to come up with a solution now. But the rule is so strict. There's not only the Dutch situation, but also, for example: if I now choose to rotate the parliament in different cities, like the EU parliament usually meets in Brussels, but also in Strasbourg: how do you put that on the map? This is called customisation. The rule does not allow for customisation, it seems.Craitman wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 8:20 pmThe capital thing is a good question. That rule has been in place since before I joined the community, so I'm not entirely sure on its original intentions. But, also, it should be noted that our symbols do not really match any real-life government strands. Perhaps we could do with defining that the "Country capital" is the executive, then the "Administrative" symbol can be used for any separate judicial and legislative seats?
Another question of balance: the sovereignty of a nation on the one hand to claim available land where it wishes and the interference of the Council in that desire.Craitman wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 8:20 pmNations can definitely be spread over Micras, but, on the other hand, far-flung territories have also been one of the most maligned aspects of the map for years. The Council currently has the ability to unilaterally relocate a member's claims if deemed too far apart - we're not keen on that at all, hence why we've never enacted that clause, but it's much more preferable to keep them from becoming too far spread in the first place.
You're right, my mistake.
A case by case situation. The current Charter and the proposed amendment seem to constitute more and more strict rules and procedures, which increasingly reduce the scope for improvisation.Craitman wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 8:20 pmI totally agree, but members are also not allowed to submit modifications for nations they have no control over. If you can agree with someone that a certain region is officially disputed, then submit a claim and we'll label it as such (see Elwynn and Tellia before the land settlement), but I'm sure you'd not happily allow for some distant nation with which you've never interacted to be able to come and dispute the entirety of Francia.
It may come as no surprise that I have a preconceived plan for my activities, including my claim requests. Perhaps it is an idea that I present my "grand plan", to make a "deal" after all.
Exactly. Joe's reaction is bureaucratic, but this reaction includes more mercy. Exactly what I'm aiming for with my concerns.Craitman wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 8:20 pmI think if someone has some genuine situation and wouldn't be able to do anything for a sustained period, we could certainly be reasonable, permitting there's a way to discern the opportunists who could take advantage of such an allowance from the legitimate cases.
The concept of customary is fine, as long as you're not over-bureaucratic and to honesty. There's no need for a strict rule.Senya wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 9:57 pmWe can still have leeway if, for instance, there are no applications taken of merit for the role of the Junior Councillor. This ruling simply codifies what is already done. Whilst I share your concern that this could be enforced too strictly if there were no suitable applicants, we reserve the right to keep any application process open until we find suitable applicants.
I find it fine if a map is not updated until after ten days. I don't think anyone wants to stress about a hobby. I don't want any complaints from Craitman's girlfriend, because he has to update a map and therefore doesn't have time for her.Senya wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 9:57 pmI'm a bit confused as we have not put any time limit on updating the claims map in the charter. The only person who publishes the map currently is Craitman, who publishes weekly. If for whatever reason he was unable to do so, I think we'd all be understanding and wouldn't hold it against him. Us councillors are human too and we have five other councillors who could fill in for him if needed.
That certain areas are not or less developed, that can happen. Perhaps because consideration is being given to ceding that area to another nation or something like that. For example in the recent treatment of my claim on Frisiae it is stated that areas on Keltia are underdeveloped. But nobody asked me if that had a reason.Senya wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 9:57 pmThe six criteria will be evaluated on a qualitative basis. There were some councillors who argued for more quantitative measures of these criteria but we decided that a qualitative analysis would be better. If, say, Batavia submitted an expansion, we would be looking at what that nation has done with the territory that it has already claimed and use that as a basis to determine whether an expansion is warranted. So for instance, if your previous expansions or territory have been detailed on your maps or featured in stories in the Micras Chessboard, then we would be more willing to accept a future expansion, where as if you had claimed an island previously and then done nothing with it, then we wouldn't be so willing to grant a future expansion. Basically, if you're putting in good work into the areas you control, then this shouldn't be a concern.
I can read the existing charter, thank you. My point is that there must be a balance in a rule and the implication of the rule. What's meant by a definition, that's what I want. A rapid expansion of 10 pixels in a few weeks or a rapid expansion of 100 pixels in a few months. What does the definition imply?Senya wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 9:57 pmThe concern here is spamming claims to the council unnecessarily. We are of the opinion that any new expansion should be thought out and have at least some work into them, and if every week you're asking for 10 more pixels, we're going to take less kindly to that than if you asked for 1,000 pixels in just one expansion. As stated before by the others, this clause already exists in the charter.
Define the definition you use. As far as I'm concerned, the judgment is still suggestive.Senya wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 9:57 pmAgain this will be a qualitative judgement, but we'll look at the culture of a nation and proximity to existing claims. So for instance, the Bassarids would have little issue with a new expansion around Corum or southern Keltia, say, but if they suddenly asked for land in Northern Apollonia, far away from any of their current claims, we would be inclined to deny. This isn't a ban on having far flung territories per se, and nations such as Francia who are landlocked in their core territory would be treated with some discretion, but it just ensure that people aren't land hogging.
Again: it's about the balance sheet. What is the end and what are the means. Of course I can claim all of Micras, but the other side is that the Council should not interfere in the sovereign development of a nation. If a nation wants to claim something somewhere, then the Council should not decide whether it is better to claim something elsewhere.Senya wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 9:57 pmWell we're the arbitrator of the map, we have to rule on what gets included and what doesn't, otherwise someone could come along and say "hey btw I claim all of Micras now". We want to be as impartial as we can (we don't allow councillors to vote on claims that affect their own nation(s)), but ultimately someone has to have a final say on the map.
It is better for all Council proceedings to be open to the public. The Council facilitates nations, not regulates. That implies Part A, point 1.Senya wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 9:57 pmI share your concerns about the behind closed doors-nature of the council meetings, that has come around with the rise of Discord. Any complaints will always be responded to publicly and councillors can be contacted privately. Realistically, if anyone feels that council members are abusing their power and/or are treating individual members of the community unfairly, then this needs to be raised and I would be the first to start proceedings to get that council member off the council. We don't want anyone to feel that they are being treated unfairly and as such transparency is important. With that said, we do have an Admin discussion forum hidden and a private discord chat but any rulings that are made are consulted with publicly before being passed.
It's a sovereign decision of a nation to claim something. Let's not create a culture of "we decide where you can claim."Senya wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 9:57 pmThis goes back to the earlier point about the council being an adjudicator. If Examplestan is spread out but has a core territory that is bordered by the green, claiming a new territory close to a smaller and more compact Imagineland would be unfair on that country. Again, if it's a reasonable expansion, the MCS won't deny it, but given that there are parts of continental interiors that have been unclaimed for over a decade and some islands that have been part of a dozen countries in that time, we do need to consider how we allocate land in a more considerate way.
Great!Senya wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 9:57 pmAs long as the disputes are reasonable the MCS is happy to display them. If it were a case of someone delibaretely claiming others land, then we would not allow that if they were obviously being a dick rather than facilitating a claim (like the one you mentioned) that makes in-context sense.
I'm spinning on a proposal.
Well, a year ago, I didn't think half the world's population would go into lockdown. It did, and for the most part, it's still going on. So never say never.Senya wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 9:57 pmIf a nation is removed from the map, their claims will be protected for a month after to ensure that they can come back if they return. But if someone can't even muster one post in four months, then they're just hogging land that other, more active nations have. Everyone on Micras has real world commitments, sometimes that means we can't participate on Micras as much as we would like, but I don't see a set of circumstances where someone would be unable to produce even the smallest ounce of activity for three months.
Well, the knife has to cut both ways. The Council is becoming increasingly tightly regulated and given more powers. Only, why is the maximum processing time of a claim not set?Senya wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 10:01 pmAnother point worth bearing in mind is that we are all giving up our spare time to this project, so none of us want this to be bureaucratic (personally I have better things to do). We don't want to be held to a strict set of guidelines, and we feel that this charter gives us the flexibility and the structure to adjudicate on claims in a fair and impartial manner. In some cases that will obviously result in disappointment, but we have to have some rules to ensure that Micras is a fair playing field for all that participate in it.
The intention of my remark is the balance between purpose and means. If the goal is documenting, then the means is just capturing. But if the goal is to facilitate active nations, then the means is to measure activity and allow claims on it.
Your meeting isn't entirely public. I cannot sufficiently substantiate my possible complaint if the meeting is also held in secret.
Not really.
There is a big difference between facilitating and determining. That’s my point.
And that's suggestive again. After all, posting a post, is that a "substantial contribution"? At least that's what the amendment mentions.Joe wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 10:14 pmThis is identical to how the Council currently operates. Nations are regularly removed if they provide zero activity over an entire three month period (that is, no posts at all, no wiki edits at all, no message to anyone saying "I'm still here") If you can't even make one lousy post, or one message in three months, then why should we believe that you're still here?
I'm glad there's such a thing as Micras. An organization is needed, only I keep having my reservations about a bureaucratic document while we have to keep the hobby fun.Joe wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 10:14 pmThe whole point of doing this is to get rid of all the "The Council shall" and "notwithstanding"s. While we're at it, we're just updating sections of the Charter to reflect what we already do. There are shortcuts that we take, such as automatically approving simple amendments for example, that are not reflected in the current Charter.
There is a world of difference between an "authority" and an "arbiter".
As can be read in my reactions above, there is still a difference whether a post or a substantive contribution should be weighed up by the Council. It does not make the definitions any clearer. If meetings are also partly hidden from the public, the Council's considerations are not transparent, measurable and specific.Ryker wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 4:58 amI echo what my friends on the council have said and want to touch on a word Arky keeps using: "concrete". This is a hobby of average folks making extraordinary nations, with dragons, space fleets, genocides on comical proportions, moon trees, floating armor warfare, and giant flying hamsters that will bite an aircraft in two. There's not much that's concrete in our corner of micronations, so we have to rely on our own and other's suspension of disbelieve. The councils role is, in this way, to make sure that the claim (no matter how fantastical or mundane) can be rectified with the collective narrative of the sector. The council and the charter are here to encourage an environment where everyone can enjoy their nation as much as the next guy through the MCS.
Arky
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
I'm a little confused by your statements, Gustaaf. I understand that you're concerned that it will make things more arbitrary, yet you're concerned it makes it more bureaucratic. For me, these things are opposite ends of a spectrum.
So by balancing the criteria (qualitative over quantitative, 50 words quality text is better than 100 words of just randomw ords here and there) with the need for understandable procedures, I feel that the current draft is better than the current text. The current text is very harsh – so harsh that had we actually used it, most countries today on Micras would actually have to reduce their territories. It is wrong of us to continue be against the Charter this way, so that's why we've tried to find a way to stop these forced arbitrary reductions. So now, whenever a reduction is necessary under the new proposal, there are clear criteria for it (when activity has gone down siginficantly for a looooong period). This way, countries will get a chance to survive a little longer (by reducing first rather than simply being taken off the map).
But I do understand: change is difficult and annoying, and I can see why people may find the text threatening. But to be honest, it is a lessening of strictness on the countries today, meaning they can get away with more types of activity (quality for example! lovely maps, pictures, poetry, etc.), it brings more power to the membership itself (more votes to be passed by membership, less power to the council to arbitrarily change the charter for example). I think this, in the long run, is much better.
If you have other proposals on how to measure activity, feel free to propose it. We'd love to hear from you and all others. This is OUR society, not the Council's, so whatever we decide needs to at least have a majority behind it. I'd hope to make as many as possible happy with the revisions.
So by balancing the criteria (qualitative over quantitative, 50 words quality text is better than 100 words of just randomw ords here and there) with the need for understandable procedures, I feel that the current draft is better than the current text. The current text is very harsh – so harsh that had we actually used it, most countries today on Micras would actually have to reduce their territories. It is wrong of us to continue be against the Charter this way, so that's why we've tried to find a way to stop these forced arbitrary reductions. So now, whenever a reduction is necessary under the new proposal, there are clear criteria for it (when activity has gone down siginficantly for a looooong period). This way, countries will get a chance to survive a little longer (by reducing first rather than simply being taken off the map).
But I do understand: change is difficult and annoying, and I can see why people may find the text threatening. But to be honest, it is a lessening of strictness on the countries today, meaning they can get away with more types of activity (quality for example! lovely maps, pictures, poetry, etc.), it brings more power to the membership itself (more votes to be passed by membership, less power to the council to arbitrarily change the charter for example). I think this, in the long run, is much better.
If you have other proposals on how to measure activity, feel free to propose it. We'd love to hear from you and all others. This is OUR society, not the Council's, so whatever we decide needs to at least have a majority behind it. I'd hope to make as many as possible happy with the revisions.
-
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:33 am
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
Well, when I look at Joe, Ryker and Senya's reactions, I detect a different tone at Craitman. Side note: I also think Craitman should be named Micras' most beloved person.Ric wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 10:16 amI'm a little confused by your statements, Gustaaf. I understand that you're concerned that it will make things more arbitrary, yet you're concerned it makes it more bureaucratic. For me, these things are opposite ends of a spectrum.
So by balancing the criteria (qualitative over quantitative, 50 words quality text is better than 100 words of just randomw ords here and there) with the need for understandable procedures, I feel that the current draft is better than the current text. The current text is very harsh – so harsh that had we actually used it, most countries today on Micras would actually have to reduce their territories. It is wrong of us to continue be against the Charter this way, so that's why we've tried to find a way to stop these forced arbitrary reductions. So now, whenever a reduction is necessary under the new proposal, there are clear criteria for it (when activity has gone down siginficantly for a looooong period). This way, countries will get a chance to survive a little longer (by reducing first rather than simply being taken off the map).
But I do understand: change is difficult and annoying, and I can see why people may find the text threatening. But to be honest, it is a lessening of strictness on the countries today, meaning they can get away with more types of activity (quality for example! lovely maps, pictures, poetry, etc.), it brings more power to the membership itself (more votes to be passed by membership, less power to the council to arbitrarily change the charter for example). I think this, in the long run, is much better.
If you have other proposals on how to measure activity, feel free to propose it. We'd love to hear from you and all others. This is OUR society, not the Council's, so whatever we decide needs to at least have a majority behind it. I'd hope to make as many as possible happy with the revisions.
In my reactions I try to show that the chosen definitions, whether in the existing charter or in the proposed amendment, are anything but clear and irrefutable. The charter has become a five-page document with more obscure terms and procedures. While I plead for a simple text. The more strict rules, the more problems this can have. Now Micras is quite active, but there are times when almost nothing happens. Then deadlines and procedures can be suffocating.
- You say, OUR society. But why does the Council meet behind closed doors? Open up!
- If the Council gives the benefit of the doubt, let it be expressed at the time of approval. Or set conditions.
- Delete rules about unnecessary obligations, such as one capital symbol. Just a guideline of expectations, deviations are negotiable and customized.
- Let the Council work on the differences between the political map and the physical map. The sea already has five different shades of blue.
- Write a new charter in plain English one page long. Come on: when entering a disco, there are fewer rules than the current charter.
Arky
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
Just to tackle the bits relevant to my comments:
Gustaaf Vermeylen wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 10:06 amAnd this is exactly what I'm struggling with. Even more than is the case now, every procedure is wrapped up in all kinds of rules.
...
I mean that what you are doing now, without any obligation, is so crazy to publish a new version of the map every week, let it be recorded as a rule. Why?
...
The definition implies that a forum post or an edit of a Micras article is not sufficient.
...
Well, that's a very negative thing to say.
...
Is it realistic that Great Britain owns a piece of Spain? Or that France owns the island of Amsterdam in the Indian Ocean? Perhaps scattered claims are not desirable, it happens sometimes.
...
The community isn't that big, then you know how it is. Better not complain, so as not to get into trouble.
...
if I now choose to rotate the parliament in different cities, like the EU parliament usually meets in Brussels, but also in Strasbourg: how do you put that on the map? This is called customisation. The rule does not allow for customisation, it seems.
...
A case by case situation. The current Charter and the proposed amendment seem to constitute more and more strict rules and procedures, which increasingly reduce the scope for improvisation.
...
It may come as no surprise that I have a preconceived plan for my activities, including my claim requests. Perhaps it is an idea that I present my "grand plan", to make a "deal" after all.
- Yes, procedures have rules, otherwise they wouldn't really be procedures, just a series of disconnected events. In the example of finding a new Junior, the role is a Council position where the individual in it may be needed to vote on multiple claims over the space of a week. The week's nomination period is a good sign that they check here regularly and are less likely to cause a backlog on claims. In my years here, I've heard more complaints about claims not being finalised than I have about pretty much anything else.
- I have no problem with updating the map on a weekly basis, where claims have been passed, it's slightly disconcerting you call it "crazy". Also, nothing in the proposed changes stipulates that the map must be updated every week.
- You have inferred that correctly. The sheer act of editing the wiki or posting on a forum isn't intrinsically linked with development. An edit can be to fix a typo or it can be to create a brand new 10,000-word article; a forum post can be a stats-inflating sole emoji, or it can be a whole novella. The raw act of editing/posting remains the same, yet the substance is markedly not.
- Saying that claims submitted close together with legitimate reasoning are okay doesn't sound "very negative" to me; I'd call it "reasonable" and "preexisting".
- You're right, and if we turn real-life examples into hypothetical Micrasian claims, nations like the UK, France and the Netherlands would have some pretty impressive wiki articles storytelling hundreds of years of conquests, wars and slavery to explain them.
- The last major complaint that the MCS received ended with one of the largest Charter overhauls we've seen. Rules that many people here use to their full potential, such as being permitted to lead three nations, came about via a complaint. I've not really known many people in this community bite their tongue in fear over reprisals, and I'd hope they wouldn't.
- If you want to rotate your capital over the year, that would be submitted as an internal modification, which would not require voting on, and would be added to the following map update. The current vagueness of the symbol's meaning probably allows for more customisation, an "administrative capital" certainly means different things to different nations, not less.
- As many of us have pointed-out, almost no additional restrictions are being made in these proposed changes. The "more strict" aspects you keep referring to are already things by which you and the rest of the community currently abide and agree to upon claiming on Micras.
- Yes, please do. Anything that you feel will support your claim's case should be mentioned when you submit it - if it's something that hasn't been published yet, we may want to see it as it could be something that swings votes.
How's the wife? I hope she's not going to come after me for forcing you to write all these extensive forum posts. Keep the clowning away from this discussion if you want your points to hold any merit, please...I don't want any complaints from Craitman's girlfriend, because he has to update a map and therefore doesn't have time for her.
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
There is a reason why the Council has a private forum. It's so we can discuss things privately. All decisions of the Council are public. We usually motivate our votes publicly. We answer your long lists of questions and statements bordering on obtuseness publicly.
A short comment about the capital symbol issue. That's just on the MCS claimsmap. If you want to make your own map showing fifteen different capitals, no one will stop you.
A short comment about the capital symbol issue. That's just on the MCS claimsmap. If you want to make your own map showing fifteen different capitals, no one will stop you.
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
I understand this discussion is more about the plain English rework of the Charter. But I think the Charter could be served well by having a separate section for definitions so everyone understands what's what clearly.
Like, for instance, all the terms mentioned as things the Council will consider in judging a claim (part G, section 2) should be more adequately defined.
Like, for instance, all the terms mentioned as things the Council will consider in judging a claim (part G, section 2) should be more adequately defined.
EDGARD
Central Committee of Edgards
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Currently involved in: New Alexandria, Natopia, Ransenar, Constancia
JOIN THE NOUVELLE ALEXANDRIE DISCORD SERVER!
Central Committee of Edgards
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Currently involved in: New Alexandria, Natopia, Ransenar, Constancia
JOIN THE NOUVELLE ALEXANDRIE DISCORD SERVER!
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
That's fair, I think. As subjective as the criteria are, a better explanation of the kind of things we look for to support a claim would certainly help improve understanding. "History" could refer to the nation's OOC past, its simulated history, a history of claim progression, or all three, for example...
-
- Administrator General
- Posts: 4333
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:58 pm
- Location: Republic of Mercury
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
We can certainly have a claiming FAQ or something where these things are all explainedEdgard wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 3:00 pmI understand this discussion is more about the plain English rework of the Charter. But I think the Charter could be served well by having a separate section for definitions so everyone understands what's what clearly.
Like, for instance, all the terms mentioned as things the Council will consider in judging a claim (part G, section 2) should be more adequately defined.
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
There is nothing to show there, except for votes on new junior council members. All voting is already done in public.Gustaaf Vermeylen wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 12:00 pm- You say, OUR society. But why does the Council meet behind closed doors? Open up!
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
I know that one exists already. But I think it might be smart to have official definitions to set correct expectations and clarify what's what to lessen ambiguity. If they're in the Charter, then it becomes more ironclad, I think.Joe wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 4:55 pmWe can certainly have a claiming FAQ or something where these things are all explainedEdgard wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 3:00 pmI understand this discussion is more about the plain English rework of the Charter. But I think the Charter could be served well by having a separate section for definitions so everyone understands what's what clearly.
Like, for instance, all the terms mentioned as things the Council will consider in judging a claim (part G, section 2) should be more adequately defined.
EDGARD
Central Committee of Edgards
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Currently involved in: New Alexandria, Natopia, Ransenar, Constancia
JOIN THE NOUVELLE ALEXANDRIE DISCORD SERVER!
Central Committee of Edgards
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Currently involved in: New Alexandria, Natopia, Ransenar, Constancia
JOIN THE NOUVELLE ALEXANDRIE DISCORD SERVER!
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
Indeed. The only reason we discuss a vote away form prying eyes is that we don't want people jumping to conclusions or putting undue pressure on members before all votes are in. Once the vote is passed, it's all out in the open.Rasmus wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 5:53 pmThere is nothing to show there, except for votes on new junior council members. All voting is already done in public.Gustaaf Vermeylen wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 12:00 pm- You say, OUR society. But why does the Council meet behind closed doors? Open up!
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
I support the revisions of the charter because I know that the organisation is in good hands with the current administrator-general. I see this as an attempt to move away from some of the bureaucratic restrictions that could interfere with the judgement of the council, which I applaud.
Porque las estirpes condenadas a cien años de soledad no tenían una segunda oportunidad sobre la tierra.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
As we have just under a week remaining of this consultation period, I'd like to propose the following as a result of the above conversation:
After an amount of thought, I think we should probably do away with the "one capital per nation" rule (§F5). There are a few situations which could arise that mean one symbol isn't completely adequate or that the "administrative capital" symbol doesn't fittingly cover, so I can't fundamentally agree that nations should be limited to just the one "country capital".
In addition, on the suggestion of Edgard, perhaps the following clarifications could be made in regard to the criteria by which we judge claims (§G2), even if added as a footnote rather than in that specific section itself:
After an amount of thought, I think we should probably do away with the "one capital per nation" rule (§F5). There are a few situations which could arise that mean one symbol isn't completely adequate or that the "administrative capital" symbol doesn't fittingly cover, so I can't fundamentally agree that nations should be limited to just the one "country capital".
In addition, on the suggestion of Edgard, perhaps the following clarifications could be made in regard to the criteria by which we judge claims (§G2), even if added as a footnote rather than in that specific section itself:
Cultural development - how well defined your nation's civilisation is; infrastructure, architecture, economics, sport, languages and artwork.
Internal government - your nation's ability to organise itself; elections, ideologies, legislation and defence.
International collaboration - interactions with other nations or supranational organisations; treaties, diplomacy, trading and warfare.
History - your nation's past on Micras; previous claims, developmental consistency and in-character beginnings.
Use of current claims - how your nation uses its existing land; cities, subdivisions and regions that may be underdeveloped.
Geographic realism - your nation's size and distribution; distance between territories, the shape of the borders and the location of the claim.
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
I propose that we make the capital symbol optional, it is quite feasible a nation doesn't have a capital city at all. Switzerland doesn't have one and they seem to function well enough.