Consultation on updating the Charter
Moderator: Staff
-
- Administrator General
- Posts: 4328
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:58 pm
- Location: Republic of Mercury
Consultation on updating the Charter
Following discussions in the Council, we will be proposing that the Charter be amended. We believe that the current Charter is filled with legal jargon, that while it covers almost all eventualities that may arise, is difficult to understand, particularly for the large numbers of non-native English speakers in the community. We have rewritten the Charter to be in plain English, a link to this can be found below, but I will also summarise the changes made below:
This thread is not a vote, so please do not vote here.
The proposed new Charter can be found here
- Cosmetic changes to wording, so the Charter is now in plain English rather than complicated legal-speak, so no more “shall”, “notwithstanding” and so on.
- Specifically defining the 7-day nomination period for prospective Junior Council member applicants.
- Clarifying that the absence provisions also apply to the Administrator-General and the Junior Council member.
- Reducing the threshold required to dismiss a Council member in a no confidence situation.
- Specifying what counts as a vote and clarifying when the Junior Council member can vote.
- Specifying that nations may terminate their membership by submitting a removal claim.
- Clarifying the requirement for representatives to behave professionally.
- Replacing the vague description of “activity” for determining claims with some more specific definitions.
- Making official the policy of allowing nations to claim shortly before the 30-day waiting period is over.
- Making specific provisions for reduction of claims, as a less severe penalty compared to straight removal.
- Allowing a 30-day grace period for nations that have had a forced reduction, in line with the policy on removals.
This thread is not a vote, so please do not vote here.
The proposed new Charter can be found here
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
Jingdao motions that a nicer font be selected.
-
- Administrator General
- Posts: 4328
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:58 pm
- Location: Republic of Mercury
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
Not all of us have enough enemies that we can write in their blood
-
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:33 am
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
As for Arcadia, Batavia and Francia:
We have serious reservations about the proposed amendments to the Charter. The amendments make the MCS procedures even more bureaucratic than they already are. I understand that there have to be rules, but there's always room between the rules. The stricter the rules, the less space between them. This leads to more "computer says no" attitude.
We have serious reservations about the proposed amendments to the Charter. The amendments make the MCS procedures even more bureaucratic than they already are. I understand that there have to be rules, but there's always room between the rules. The stricter the rules, the less space between them. This leads to more "computer says no" attitude.
Arky
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21546
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
From a Council perspective, we're actually trying to alleviate some of the bureaucracy with this update. Can you pinpoint which changes you feel would make us become more bureaucratic?Gustaaf Vermeylen wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 2:26 pmThe amendments make the MCS procedures even more bureaucratic than they already are.
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
Indeed. If there's something in the update you think could be better and help streamline the council's process, please share. That's what his thread is here for.
-
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:33 am
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
Concerns include these:
- It is understandable that there must be deadlines for certain procedures. Such as the period of activity before a claim can be made, activity to retain a claim, etc. But every deadline has the danger that there will be pressure to meet that deadline. A 7 day deadline for nomination, then that requires careful execution. The Second Kingdom of Batavia collapsed because of established procedures. It remains a hobby, not everyone has time available at all times. BTW, those current strict rules prevent me from nominating a junior councillor for a vacancy.
- Every week a new version of the claims folder, that's a commitment. What happens if I don't make it? Reducing Craitland? (the last one is a joke)
- That "vague description" of activity, it hasn't become any clearer. Because the council is now going to check the activity for substantive relevance? Isn't that an impossible job? And what determines the substantive relevance? If I make one detailed map or part of it, it takes me more time than a new episode in the story series of "The Micras Chessboard". And to which micronation does that new version of the detailed map or story apply? In short, an impossible work.
- The definition of "rapid succession" of expansion claims, for example, is as vague as with the current charter. A quick follow-up of relatively small claims, say less than 10 pixels, is that so bad?
- What is "geographic realism"? Participants do not or hardly take the physical map into account when setting up their claim. Apart from the point that the political map and the physical map differ from each other, such as the one on Apollonia that is on the political map, but not on the physical map.
- The council seems to be a self-sufficient body, but what is the purpose of the organization? Do these procedures all serve that purpose? I don't have an answer to that, but the rules aren't there for the rules.
- There is no text about complaints. What if there are complaints about the functioning of the council? This could be about the political influence or personal opinion towards someone who makes a claim. I am not satisfied with the council's handling of recent claim requests. Nobody is complaining now, because that affects the possible assessment of a future claim application. At least, I have that impression.
- Where's the text on reservations? And why would there be a possibility for existing nations to make reservations? The latter is of course possible with the proviso that no other claims can be made than just sharing or completely making that reservation within a certain period of time.
- Why should a nation not have multiple capitals? I live in a country (RL) where there are actually several capitals. The formal capital is Amsterdam, but the government and parliament reside in The Hague. If I want to do that for my micronation, who determines for which city the capital symbol is used?
- Why shouldn't a nation be spread all over Micras? Shall we tell the British on the imaginary earth? Or the French? It is very realistic for a nation to be sovereign in the decision to claim elsewhere on Micras territory. Why should the council have to decide for me whether to extend an existing claim or claim Micras elsewhere?
- Why shouldn't islands smaller than one pixel be claimed? On the imaginary earth there are many islands smaller than 144 km2.
- When it comes to realism, it is very realistic to have areas with different statuses. The Crimea, is that from Ukraine or from Russia? Example: if Francia is the rightful successor of Amokolia, then Elwynn is the occupier of the Automatica Islands. So why shouldn't this geopolitical discussion be shown on the political map?
- Is there a possibility to make a deal that someone can make a big claim, with the restriction that no claim can be made or dealt with for a certain period of time?
- Is there a way to give the existing claim protected status for a certain period of time? This status is to protect the claim from being reduced or deleted, but then no possibility of making new claims. This in order not to lose the earlier work at a time of reallife busyness.
Arky
-
- Administrator General
- Posts: 4328
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:58 pm
- Location: Republic of Mercury
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
Gustaaf Vermeylen wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 6:06 pmConcerns include these:The purpose of the Society can be found in Part A, point 1
- It is understandable that there must be deadlines for certain procedures. Such as the period of activity before a claim can be made, activity to retain a claim, etc. But every deadline has the danger that there will be pressure to meet that deadline. A 7 day deadline for nomination, then that requires careful execution. The Second Kingdom of Batavia collapsed because of established procedures. It remains a hobby, not everyone has time available at all times. BTW, those current strict rules prevent me from nominating a junior councillor for a vacancy.
On the last five occasions, the nomination period has been either 6 days or 7 days. This rule is slightly more generous than what we have allowed in the past.- Every week a new version of the claims folder, that's a commitment. What happens if I don't make it? Reducing Craitland? (the last one is a joke)
Publishing of claims maps will work exactly the same as now, every Sunday unless there are no changes to be made.- That "vague description" of activity, it hasn't become any clearer. Because the council is now going to check the activity for substantive relevance? Isn't that an impossible job? And what determines the substantive relevance? If I make one detailed map or part of it, it takes me more time than a new episode in the story series of "The Micras Chessboard". And to which micronation does that new version of the detailed map or story apply? In short, an impossible work.
There are six specified criteria that will be considered by the Council- The definition of "rapid succession" of expansion claims, for example, is as vague as with the current charter. A quick follow-up of relatively small claims, say less than 10 pixels, is that so bad?
This rule is already in the current Charter- What is "geographic realism"? Participants do not or hardly take the physical map into account when setting up their claim. Apart from the point that the political map and the physical map differ from each other, such as the one on Apollonia that is on the political map, but not on the physical map.
It is a judgement of how realistic it is that a nation would be able to sustain a claim in a particular location- The council seems to be a self-sufficient body, but what is the purpose of the organization? Do these procedures all serve that purpose? I don't have an answer to that, but the rules aren't there for the rules.
If you do change the charter, why don't you change these points:The current requirement is that a nation only needs to show signs of life in a three month period to remain on the map. This is not changed by the proposal. With regards to reductions, the Council would be willing to apply benefit of the doubt if there are reasonable mitigating circumstances.
- There is no text about complaints. What if there are complaints about the functioning of the council? This could be about the political influence or personal opinion towards someone who makes a claim. I am not satisfied with the council's handling of recent claim requests. Nobody is complaining now, because that affects the possible assessment of a future claim application. At least, I have that impression.
There is a subforum called "Complaints Desk" where complaints can be submitted. This has existed for years, and will not change. If you believe that the Council have not followed procedure, feel free to post there.- Where's the text on reservations? And why would there be a possibility for existing nations to make reservations? The latter is of course possible with the proviso that no other claims can be made than just sharing or completely making that reservation within a certain period of time.
This is bullet 2 in Part E, and works in exactly the same way as under the current Charter.- Why should a nation not have multiple capitals? I live in a country (RL) where there are actually several capitals. The formal capital is Amsterdam, but the government and parliament reside in The Hague. If I want to do that for my micronation, who determines for which city the capital symbol is used?
This is an existing rule, I'm sure the Council would be open to make a change to this if there is support for the idea.- Why shouldn't a nation be spread all over Micras? Shall we tell the British on the imaginary earth? Or the French? It is very realistic for a nation to be sovereign in the decision to claim elsewhere on Micras territory. Why should the council have to decide for me whether to extend an existing claim or claim Micras elsewhere?
This is an existing rule, that previous Councils have been too lax on for the liking of the current Council. We currently do try to uphold realism where possible, which is why when Green is available next to existing territory, some Council members prefer members to claim there instead of spreading out unnecessarily.- Why shouldn't islands smaller than one pixel be claimed? On the imaginary earth there are many islands smaller than 144 km2.
Islands smaller than one pixel are allowed to be claimed, see the Franklin Islands for example.- When it comes to realism, it is very realistic to have areas with different statuses. The Crimea, is that from Ukraine or from Russia? Example: if Francia is the rightful successor of Amokolia, then Elwynn is the occupier of the Automatica Islands. So why shouldn't this geopolitical discussion be shown on the political map?
The map has various markings for things like satellite states, disputed regions and so on. Feel free to use these.- Is there a possibility to make a deal that someone can make a big claim, with the restriction that no claim can be made or dealt with for a certain period of time?
The Council have previously given the benefit of the doubt in these situations, this is not an official rule or policy, but it is not changed by this proposal.- Is there a way to give the existing claim protected status for a certain period of time? This status is to protect the claim from being reduced or deleted, but then no possibility of making new claims. This in order not to lose the earlier work at a time of reallife busyness.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21546
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
Thank 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 don't know what you're referring to here, unfortunately.
- The 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.
- Honestly, 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.
- For 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.
- Are you genuinely asking what the purpose of the Council is, or what the purpose of the MCS is? I think both are slightly disingenuous questions for a long-standing member of the community.
- We 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.
- Reservations would work as they currently do. Nothing has changed here with the reservation process; again, all we are doing is formalising a procedure we already undertake.
- The 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?
- Nations 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.
- Islands smaller than 144 sq km are permitted to be claimed. We're not removing that ability.
- I 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 wouldn't be a "deal", but the knowledge that a claim may be a nation's last expansion in a certain area, or for some time, has definitely been considered before and isn't being affected with these changes.
- I 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.
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
I have nothing to add, Joe and Craitman sum everything up nicely.
-
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:33 am
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
Concerns include these:
- It is understandable that there must be deadlines for certain procedures. Such as the period of activity before a claim can be made, activity to retain a claim, etc. But every deadline has the danger that there will be pressure to meet that deadline. A 7 day deadline for nomination, then that requires careful execution. The Second Kingdom of Batavia collapsed because of established procedures. It remains a hobby, not everyone has time available at all times. BTW, those current strict rules prevent me from nominating a junior councillor for a vacancy.
On the last five occasions, the nomination period has been either 6 days or 7 days. This rule is slightly more generous than what we have allowed in the past.
What I mean is, the charter's gonna be a graduation piece now. Strict deadlines and bureaucratic procedures, that's the downside of flexibility. - Every week a new version of the claims folder, that's a commitment. What happens if I don't make it? Reducing Craitland? (the last one is a joke)
Publishing of claims maps will work exactly the same as now, every Sunday unless there are no changes to be made.
It is very nice that a new map is published every week. But why set it down bureaucratically now, with the risk that it will not be achieved. - That "vague description" of activity, it hasn't become any clearer. Because the council is now going to check the activity for substantive relevance? Isn't that an impossible job? And what determines the substantive relevance? If I make one detailed map or part of it, it takes me more time than a new episode in the story series of "The Micras Chessboard". And to which micronation does that new version of the detailed map or story apply? In short, an impossible work.
There are six specified criteria that will be considered by the Council
No attack, but this is a bit of a simple answer. What is meant by "sufficiently developed"? How do you measure it? - The definition of "rapid succession" of expansion claims, for example, is as vague as with the current charter. A quick follow-up of relatively small claims, say less than 10 pixels, is that so bad?
This rule is already in the current Charter
Yeah. Can you answer the question? - What is "geographic realism"? Participants do not or hardly take the physical map into account when setting up their claim. Apart from the point that the political map and the physical map differ from each other, such as the one on Apollonia that is on the political map, but not on the physical map.
It is a judgement of how realistic it is that a nation would be able to sustain a claim in a particular location
How are you going to measure that concretely? - The council seems to be a self-sufficient body, but what is the purpose of the organization? Do these procedures all serve that purpose? I don't have an answer to that, but the rules aren't there for the rules.
The purpose of the Society can be found in Part A, point 1
Well, so if the MCS-Council exists to document only the territorial claims, then the MCS-Council is not in a position to reject claims... isn't it?
- There is no text about complaints. What if there are complaints about the functioning of the council? This could be about the political influence or personal opinion towards someone who makes a claim. I am not satisfied with the council's handling of recent claim requests. Nobody is complaining now, because that affects the possible assessment of a future claim application. At least, I have that impression.
There is a subforum called "Complaints Desk" where complaints can be submitted. This has existed for years, and will not change. If you believe that the Council have not followed procedure, feel free to post there.
How do you think I can concretise my complaint if part of the meeting takes place behind closed doors? - Where's the text on reservations? And why would there be a possibility for existing nations to make reservations? The latter is of course possible with the proviso that no other claims can be made than just sharing or completely making that reservation within a certain period of time.
This is bullet 2 in Part E, and works in exactly the same way as under the current Charter.
Sorry, I missed that. - Why should a nation not have multiple capitals? I live in a country (RL) where there are actually several capitals. The formal capital is Amsterdam, but the government and parliament reside in The Hague. If I want to do that for my micronation, who determines for which city the capital symbol is used?
This is an existing rule, I'm sure the Council would be open to make a change to this if there is support for the idea.
You can change an existing rule, isn't that what you do with other rules? So, why is this rule? - Why shouldn't a nation be spread all over Micras? Shall we tell the British on the imaginary earth? Or the French? It is very realistic for a nation to be sovereign in the decision to claim elsewhere on Micras territory. Why should the council have to decide for me whether to extend an existing claim or claim Micras elsewhere?
This is an existing rule, that previous Councils have been too lax on for the liking of the current Council. We currently do try to uphold realism where possible, which is why when Green is available next to existing territory, some Council members prefer members to claim there instead of spreading out unnecessarily.
With Part A, point 1, in mind: why does the MCS Council interfere in the sovereign development of a nation? - Why shouldn't islands smaller than one pixel be claimed? On the imaginary earth there are many islands smaller than 144 km2.
Islands smaller than one pixel are allowed to be claimed, see the Franklin Islands for example.
Sorry, my fault. - When it comes to realism, it is very realistic to have areas with different statuses. The Crimea, is that from Ukraine or from Russia? Example: if Francia is the rightful successor of Amokolia, then Elwynn is the occupier of the Automatica Islands. So why shouldn't this geopolitical discussion be shown on the political map?
The map has various markings for things like satellite states, disputed regions and so on. Feel free to use these.
This looks like an invitation to me. - Is there a possibility to make a deal that someone can make a big claim, with the restriction that no claim can be made or dealt with for a certain period of time?
The Council have previously given the benefit of the doubt in these situations, this is not an official rule or policy, but it is not changed by this proposal.
Why should the Council give this benefit of the doubt if it merely documents? I don't mean to be faint, but you give the impression that the Council is some kind of overlord. In my opinion, the Council should be a service provider, not a higher authority. - Is there a way to give the existing claim protected status for a certain period of time? This status is to protect the claim from being reduced or deleted, but then no possibility of making new claims. This in order not to lose the earlier work at a time of reallife busyness.
The current requirement is that a nation only needs to show signs of life in a three month period to remain on the map. This is not changed by the proposal. With regards to reductions, the Council would be willing to apply benefit of the doubt if there are reasonable mitigating circumstances.
See, you're already talking in bureaucratic procedures. Suppose, for reallife reasons, I can't stay as active as I am now. Then my work is largely lost if I can't do "substantial development". Then what? My claim disappears from the map, others start claiming the vacant area and if I can become active again after about four months, I can start all over again. Great!
Arky
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
It is understandable that there must be deadlines for certain procedures. Such as the period of activity before a claim can be made, activity to retain a claim, etc. But every deadline has the danger that there will be pressure to meet that deadline. A 7 day deadline for nomination, then that requires careful execution. The Second Kingdom of Batavia collapsed because of established procedures. It remains a hobby, not everyone has time available at all times. BTW, those current strict rules prevent me from nominating a junior councillor for a vacancy.
On the last five occasions, the nomination period has been either 6 days or 7 days. This rule is slightly more generous than what we have allowed in the past.
What I mean is, the charter's gonna be a graduation piece now. Strict deadlines and bureaucratic procedures, that's the downside of flexibility.
We 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.
Every week a new version of the claims folder, that's a commitment. What happens if I don't make it? Reducing Craitland? (the last one is a joke)
Publishing of claims maps will work exactly the same as now, every Sunday unless there are no changes to be made.
It is very nice that a new map is published every week. But why set it down bureaucratically now, with the risk that it will not be achieved.
I'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 "vague description" of activity, it hasn't become any clearer. Because the council is now going to check the activity for substantive relevance? Isn't that an impossible job? And what determines the substantive relevance? If I make one detailed map or part of it, it takes me more time than a new episode in the story series of "The Micras Chessboard". And to which micronation does that new version of the detailed map or story apply? In short, an impossible work.
There are six specified criteria that will be considered by the Council
No attack, but this is a bit of a simple answer. What is meant by "sufficiently developed"? How do you measure it?
The 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.
The definition of "rapid succession" of expansion claims, for example, is as vague as with the current charter. A quick follow-up of relatively small claims, say less than 10 pixels, is that so bad?
This rule is already in the current Charter
Yeah. Can you answer the question?
The 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.
What is "geographic realism"? Participants do not or hardly take the physical map into account when setting up their claim. Apart from the point that the political map and the physical map differ from each other, such as the one on Apollonia that is on the political map, but not on the physical map.
It is a judgement of how realistic it is that a nation would be able to sustain a claim in a particular location
How are you going to measure that concretely?
Again 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.
The council seems to be a self-sufficient body, but what is the purpose of the organization? Do these procedures all serve that purpose? I don't have an answer to that, but the rules aren't there for the rules.
The purpose of the Society can be found in Part A, point 1
Well, so if the MCS-Council exists to document only the territorial claims, then the MCS-Council is not in a position to reject claims... isn't it? [/list]
Well 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.
There is no text about complaints. What if there are complaints about the functioning of the council? This could be about the political influence or personal opinion towards someone who makes a claim. I am not satisfied with the council's handling of recent claim requests. Nobody is complaining now, because that affects the possible assessment of a future claim application. At least, I have that impression.
There is a subforum called "Complaints Desk" where complaints can be submitted. This has existed for years, and will not change. If you believe that the Council have not followed procedure, feel free to post there.
How do you think I can concretise my complaint if part of the meeting takes place behind closed doors?
I 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.
Why shouldn't a nation be spread all over Micras? Shall we tell the British on the imaginary earth? Or the French? It is very realistic for a nation to be sovereign in the decision to claim elsewhere on Micras territory. Why should the council have to decide for me whether to extend an existing claim or claim Micras elsewhere?
This is an existing rule, that previous Councils have been too lax on for the liking of the current Council. We currently do try to uphold realism where possible, which is why when Green is available next to existing territory, some Council members prefer members to claim there instead of spreading out unnecessarily.
With Part A, point 1, in mind: why does the MCS Council interfere in the sovereign development of a nation?
This 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.
When it comes to realism, it is very realistic to have areas with different statuses. The Crimea, is that from Ukraine or from Russia? Example: if Francia is the rightful successor of Amokolia, then Elwynn is the occupier of the Automatica Islands. So why shouldn't this geopolitical discussion be shown on the political map?
The map has various markings for things like satellite states, disputed regions and so on. Feel free to use these.
This looks like an invitation to me.
As 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.
Is there a possibility to make a deal that someone can make a big claim, with the restriction that no claim can be made or dealt with for a certain period of time?
The Council have previously given the benefit of the doubt in these situations, this is not an official rule or policy, but it is not changed by this proposal.
Why should the Council give this benefit of the doubt if it merely documents? I don't mean to be faint, but you give the impression that the Council is some kind of overlord. In my opinion, the Council should be a service provider, not a higher authority.
As stated before, someone has to adjudicate. We are reasonable people, if we think someone is being reasonable, we'll allow a claim. If not, we won't. Simple as that.
Is there a way to give the existing claim protected status for a certain period of time? This status is to protect the claim from being reduced or deleted, but then no possibility of making new claims. This in order not to lose the earlier work at a time of reallife busyness.
The current requirement is that a nation only needs to show signs of life in a three month period to remain on the map. This is not changed by the proposal. With regards to reductions, the Council would be willing to apply benefit of the doubt if there are reasonable mitigating circumstances.
See, you're already talking in bureaucratic procedures. Suppose, for reallife reasons, I can't stay as active as I am now. Then my work is largely lost if I can't do "substantial development". Then what? My claim disappears from the map, others start claiming the vacant area and if I can become active again after about four months, I can start all over again. Great![/list]
If 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.
On the last five occasions, the nomination period has been either 6 days or 7 days. This rule is slightly more generous than what we have allowed in the past.
What I mean is, the charter's gonna be a graduation piece now. Strict deadlines and bureaucratic procedures, that's the downside of flexibility.
We 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.
Every week a new version of the claims folder, that's a commitment. What happens if I don't make it? Reducing Craitland? (the last one is a joke)
Publishing of claims maps will work exactly the same as now, every Sunday unless there are no changes to be made.
It is very nice that a new map is published every week. But why set it down bureaucratically now, with the risk that it will not be achieved.
I'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 "vague description" of activity, it hasn't become any clearer. Because the council is now going to check the activity for substantive relevance? Isn't that an impossible job? And what determines the substantive relevance? If I make one detailed map or part of it, it takes me more time than a new episode in the story series of "The Micras Chessboard". And to which micronation does that new version of the detailed map or story apply? In short, an impossible work.
There are six specified criteria that will be considered by the Council
No attack, but this is a bit of a simple answer. What is meant by "sufficiently developed"? How do you measure it?
The 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.
The definition of "rapid succession" of expansion claims, for example, is as vague as with the current charter. A quick follow-up of relatively small claims, say less than 10 pixels, is that so bad?
This rule is already in the current Charter
Yeah. Can you answer the question?
The 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.
What is "geographic realism"? Participants do not or hardly take the physical map into account when setting up their claim. Apart from the point that the political map and the physical map differ from each other, such as the one on Apollonia that is on the political map, but not on the physical map.
It is a judgement of how realistic it is that a nation would be able to sustain a claim in a particular location
How are you going to measure that concretely?
Again 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.
The council seems to be a self-sufficient body, but what is the purpose of the organization? Do these procedures all serve that purpose? I don't have an answer to that, but the rules aren't there for the rules.
The purpose of the Society can be found in Part A, point 1
Well, so if the MCS-Council exists to document only the territorial claims, then the MCS-Council is not in a position to reject claims... isn't it? [/list]
Well 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.
There is no text about complaints. What if there are complaints about the functioning of the council? This could be about the political influence or personal opinion towards someone who makes a claim. I am not satisfied with the council's handling of recent claim requests. Nobody is complaining now, because that affects the possible assessment of a future claim application. At least, I have that impression.
There is a subforum called "Complaints Desk" where complaints can be submitted. This has existed for years, and will not change. If you believe that the Council have not followed procedure, feel free to post there.
How do you think I can concretise my complaint if part of the meeting takes place behind closed doors?
I 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.
Why shouldn't a nation be spread all over Micras? Shall we tell the British on the imaginary earth? Or the French? It is very realistic for a nation to be sovereign in the decision to claim elsewhere on Micras territory. Why should the council have to decide for me whether to extend an existing claim or claim Micras elsewhere?
This is an existing rule, that previous Councils have been too lax on for the liking of the current Council. We currently do try to uphold realism where possible, which is why when Green is available next to existing territory, some Council members prefer members to claim there instead of spreading out unnecessarily.
With Part A, point 1, in mind: why does the MCS Council interfere in the sovereign development of a nation?
This 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.
When it comes to realism, it is very realistic to have areas with different statuses. The Crimea, is that from Ukraine or from Russia? Example: if Francia is the rightful successor of Amokolia, then Elwynn is the occupier of the Automatica Islands. So why shouldn't this geopolitical discussion be shown on the political map?
The map has various markings for things like satellite states, disputed regions and so on. Feel free to use these.
This looks like an invitation to me.
As 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.
Is there a possibility to make a deal that someone can make a big claim, with the restriction that no claim can be made or dealt with for a certain period of time?
The Council have previously given the benefit of the doubt in these situations, this is not an official rule or policy, but it is not changed by this proposal.
Why should the Council give this benefit of the doubt if it merely documents? I don't mean to be faint, but you give the impression that the Council is some kind of overlord. In my opinion, the Council should be a service provider, not a higher authority.
As stated before, someone has to adjudicate. We are reasonable people, if we think someone is being reasonable, we'll allow a claim. If not, we won't. Simple as that.
Is there a way to give the existing claim protected status for a certain period of time? This status is to protect the claim from being reduced or deleted, but then no possibility of making new claims. This in order not to lose the earlier work at a time of reallife busyness.
The current requirement is that a nation only needs to show signs of life in a three month period to remain on the map. This is not changed by the proposal. With regards to reductions, the Council would be willing to apply benefit of the doubt if there are reasonable mitigating circumstances.
See, you're already talking in bureaucratic procedures. Suppose, for reallife reasons, I can't stay as active as I am now. Then my work is largely lost if I can't do "substantial development". Then what? My claim disappears from the map, others start claiming the vacant area and if I can become active again after about four months, I can start all over again. Great![/list]
If 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.
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
Another 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.
-
- Administrator General
- Posts: 4328
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:58 pm
- Location: Republic of Mercury
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
The 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.Gustaaf Vermeylen wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 8:56 pmWell, so if the MCS-Council exists to document only the territorial claims, then the MCS-Council is not in a position to reject claims... isn't it?
My bad, I thought your query was to do with the function of the MCS as a whole. The function of the Council is to vote on submitted Claims.
If you do change the charter, why don't you change these points:
How do you think I can concretise my complaint if part of the meeting takes place behind closed doors?
"Complaints Desk" is a public forum, so I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from.
You can change an existing rule, isn't that what you do with other rules? So, why is this rule?
I did specifically say that there was a possibility of this being changed, that being said, as Craitman mentioned, there are existing map symbols that provide this function already.
Why should the Council give this benefit of the doubt if it merely documents? I don't mean to be faint, but you give the impression that the Council is some kind of overlord. In my opinion, the Council should be a service provider, not a higher authority.
See my previous answer, as I misunderstood your original question. The Council is there to vote, our votes will offer benefit of doubt in certain situations, because we know things aren't always clear cut.
See, you're already talking in bureaucratic procedures. Suppose, for reallife reasons, I can't stay as active as I am now. Then my work is largely lost if I can't do "substantial development". Then what? My claim disappears from the map, others start claiming the vacant area and if I can become active again after about four months, I can start all over again. Great!
This 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?
Re: Consultation on updating the Charter
The Council is a higher authority, because otherwise Micras would be a free-for-all. We need a basic set of rules and guidelines for everything to function as smoothly as possible.