Proposal - Distance Per Pixel
Moderator: Staff
Proposal - Distance Per Pixel
This is an official proposal; if a charter amendment is necessary than this is an official proposal to amend the Charter. I would appreciate if this was actually processed and voted on.
I brought this up ages ago before I left for basic training. I'm still as passionate about it as I was before. Having had time away and a chance to mull it all over, I have come to a conclusion in juxtaposition to my original one. Allow me to explain.
As it currently stands the key on the Claims and Resource Maps reads that each pixel is 6.917 miles wide. I understand why that number was chosen, but I feel that we've moved on from that time.
Also, according to Spangle, the map is wrong. Personal opinions aside it is irrefutable that this puts the map in conflict with the MicroWiki and numerous projects done by Bill and Spangle. The argument over which is the correct one is moot because:
On my original campaign before BCT I contacted every nation with claims on the map to see if there was opposition to a change in the distance per pixel. Of those still active enough to respond there were exactly zero conflicts.
Which means that the only conflict to changing the size of the pixel is with content Spangle and Bill have created for the Wiki. As it stands the actual distance per pixel is currently considered irrelevant by all member nations. In addition the desire of the community is that we change from from Imperial to Metric.
As such I propose that the keys on the maps be changed to 12 km per pixel. This will put the published map in alignment with the content of the Wiki and reflect the work done by Spangle and Bill. At the same time this removes the cumbersome decimal that prompted this entire tirade on my part. The new Conversion Chart should read:
Map Size: 3600 x 1800 pixels
Earth Ratio: 1.8 Micras Ration 2.0
1 Kilometer = 0.621371192 Miles
1 Pixel = 12 Kilometers wide
1 Pixel = 144 square Kilometers
I brought this up ages ago before I left for basic training. I'm still as passionate about it as I was before. Having had time away and a chance to mull it all over, I have come to a conclusion in juxtaposition to my original one. Allow me to explain.
As it currently stands the key on the Claims and Resource Maps reads that each pixel is 6.917 miles wide. I understand why that number was chosen, but I feel that we've moved on from that time.
Also, according to Spangle, the map is wrong. Personal opinions aside it is irrefutable that this puts the map in conflict with the MicroWiki and numerous projects done by Bill and Spangle. The argument over which is the correct one is moot because:
On my original campaign before BCT I contacted every nation with claims on the map to see if there was opposition to a change in the distance per pixel. Of those still active enough to respond there were exactly zero conflicts.
Which means that the only conflict to changing the size of the pixel is with content Spangle and Bill have created for the Wiki. As it stands the actual distance per pixel is currently considered irrelevant by all member nations. In addition the desire of the community is that we change from from Imperial to Metric.
As such I propose that the keys on the maps be changed to 12 km per pixel. This will put the published map in alignment with the content of the Wiki and reflect the work done by Spangle and Bill. At the same time this removes the cumbersome decimal that prompted this entire tirade on my part. The new Conversion Chart should read:
Map Size: 3600 x 1800 pixels
Earth Ratio: 1.8 Micras Ration 2.0
1 Kilometer = 0.621371192 Miles
1 Pixel = 12 Kilometers wide
1 Pixel = 144 square Kilometers
His Incomparable Highness,
His Matchless Grace,
His Majestic Honor,
His Eminent Splendor,
His Chivalrous Eminence,
The Rook
Lord Protector of Uantir
His Matchless Grace,
His Majestic Honor,
His Eminent Splendor,
His Chivalrous Eminence,
The Rook
Lord Protector of Uantir
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Proposal - Distance Per Pixel
I shall copy this to Admin Discussion (not the Council as it's not a claim) and we'll discuss and vote on it
- Guido Zambelis
- Posts: 2854
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:26 pm
Re: Proposal - Distance Per Pixel
Ah, so not "The council that decides on everything regarding the MCS" (which everyone can see), but some other secret forum. Makes sense to me.
Re: Proposal - Distance Per Pixel
Yep, the Dark Beating Heart of the organization around here. It's black and slimy with oil, sort of like a scene out of the Matrix.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Proposal - Distance Per Pixel
You mean the Council subforum that only contains voting on anything to do with claims. And yes, the forum is secret (the members scared of what was hidden allowed us to keep that one) but has been around ever since the creation of the Council, and is accessible by all previous staff members - which allows a broader view of opinions during the private voting process (not too dissimilar to the private FNORD Judging board you had). It just so happens to be the same place we voted on the recent Charter amendments which received no public objections too
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Proposal - Distance Per Pixel
I support Craitman and Ailin's positions.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
Re: Proposal - Distance Per Pixel
I do as well. The current circumference of Micras is 40098.55km, the new proposal puts the circumference at 43200 KM even. This makes pixels "larger" but to be honest, having to multiply everything by 6.blablahblah when I do maps or anything involving distance is annoying. 12km is memorable and just makes life easier.
Click to register your team!
Tarjei Einhornsson - Grand Marshal of The Nordic Union
Zand Gozâr - Grand Vizier & Satrap of Kumarastan, Kingdom of Babkha
Tarjei Einhornsson - Grand Marshal of The Nordic Union
Zand Gozâr - Grand Vizier & Satrap of Kumarastan, Kingdom of Babkha
- Guido Zambelis
- Posts: 2854
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:26 pm
Re: Proposal - Distance Per Pixel
You're a great guy but when it comes to running the MCS you often come across as having the logic of a dictator.
I'm just going off what the organisation itself describes the forum as being: "The council that decides on everything regarding the MCS and consists of all members of administration."Craitman wrote:You mean the Council subforum that only contains voting on anything to do with claims.
Ah, the good old "well of course I agree with you, but my hands are tied by others", which if true is morally inconsistent.And yes, the forum is secret (the members scared of what was hidden allowed us to keep that one)
Always a good argument that one.but has been around ever since the creation of the Council,
...or to get an even broader view of opinions, you could post it in Claims & modifications (per 11f)and is accessible by all previous staff members - which allows a broader view of opinions during the private voting process
Which was closed so as to allow the judges to offer their full and frank opinions. The FNORD judging is totally different to the operation of a public body much as the MCS.(not too dissimilar to the private FNORD Judging board you had).
"You never complained before so you can't complain now" is the gist of that one.It just so happens to be the same place we voted on the recent Charter amendments which received no public objections too
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Proposal - Distance Per Pixel
I'm only going by the ways we've done any other voting that hasn't been regarding land claims, that's all.
There's nothing in the Charter that says the Council has to vote about things in the Council subforum - so we could even vote on claims in Admin Discussion. We don't, because that'd be dickish, but we do vote on non-claims there.
I never said my hands were tied, I said that the forum's private because it wasn't made public
As per 11f, there's nothing that states amendments should be posted in Claims - in fact, we have a public thread for people to air their opinions in... We're posting in it right now
That was the main reason why the Council used to be closed. Seeing as we're practically a jury, the "privacy of the judiciary" was mentioned quite a few times when discussions about opening the Council happened previously.
I'm just saying that's how we've always done non-claim voting, even after opening the Council, and that way's received no backlash until now. You can complain, I'm not stopping you, but it's been like this for a while, so I just find it a tad confusing to receive complaints after a while.
We could always reconsider the possibility of opening Admin Discussion if needs be. A majority of member votes would do it if enough people thought it necessary
There's nothing in the Charter that says the Council has to vote about things in the Council subforum - so we could even vote on claims in Admin Discussion. We don't, because that'd be dickish, but we do vote on non-claims there.
I never said my hands were tied, I said that the forum's private because it wasn't made public
As per 11f, there's nothing that states amendments should be posted in Claims - in fact, we have a public thread for people to air their opinions in... We're posting in it right now
That was the main reason why the Council used to be closed. Seeing as we're practically a jury, the "privacy of the judiciary" was mentioned quite a few times when discussions about opening the Council happened previously.
I'm just saying that's how we've always done non-claim voting, even after opening the Council, and that way's received no backlash until now. You can complain, I'm not stopping you, but it's been like this for a while, so I just find it a tad confusing to receive complaints after a while.
We could always reconsider the possibility of opening Admin Discussion if needs be. A majority of member votes would do it if enough people thought it necessary
Re: Proposal - Distance Per Pixel
To be honest, I cannot think of a single reason why the MCS should not be 100% transparent. I mean, what is the worst thing that could be in the Admin Discussion? Calling some people and some nations dicks? We do that publicly. I mean it isn't like there are super secret plans there to create a great Micran dictatorship, right?....Right?
I could see where there may be some rather obnoxious material in Admin Discussion, perhaps even vitriolic and offensive, and the MCS wishes to maintain the facade of being a professional, unbiased organization. I do notice the opening of the Council probably made some people consider their words more carefully. But there is nothing saying that you could not just delete said posts before they're made public. That may or may not be a time consuming process .
I could see where there may be some rather obnoxious material in Admin Discussion, perhaps even vitriolic and offensive, and the MCS wishes to maintain the facade of being a professional, unbiased organization. I do notice the opening of the Council probably made some people consider their words more carefully. But there is nothing saying that you could not just delete said posts before they're made public. That may or may not be a time consuming process .
Click to register your team!
Tarjei Einhornsson - Grand Marshal of The Nordic Union
Zand Gozâr - Grand Vizier & Satrap of Kumarastan, Kingdom of Babkha
Tarjei Einhornsson - Grand Marshal of The Nordic Union
Zand Gozâr - Grand Vizier & Satrap of Kumarastan, Kingdom of Babkha
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Proposal - Distance Per Pixel
I'm fine with the Council being open, that way people can see what's happening with their claims (often saves them bumping topics) and who's voted which way and why exactly. I just think the Council should have somewhere on the forum to privately discuss organisation matters. There'll probably be people thinking "what about IM and PM's? They're private!", but not everyone has [the same] IM and PM's are very limited - having a private forum is the easiest way to discuss things. I suppose we could make topics that have been inactive for a certain amount of time public, but there should be somewhere where the Council are allowed to talk about matters privately
Re: Proposal - Distance Per Pixel
That is a fair reason I suppose. But matters pertaining to charter amendments and such, I think, should be public, as it does affect the membership directly.
Click to register your team!
Tarjei Einhornsson - Grand Marshal of The Nordic Union
Zand Gozâr - Grand Vizier & Satrap of Kumarastan, Kingdom of Babkha
Tarjei Einhornsson - Grand Marshal of The Nordic Union
Zand Gozâr - Grand Vizier & Satrap of Kumarastan, Kingdom of Babkha
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Proposal - Distance Per Pixel
Oh, there's public discussions about them too, and their vote results get posted in NoticesEinhorn wrote:That is a fair reason I suppose. But matters pertaining to charter amendments and such, I think, should be public, as it does affect the membership directly.
Anywho, let's get back to talking about the pixel problem. Don't want to muddle-up too many different topics. Maybe start a new thread on anything else you (or anyone else) would like to propose
- Guido Zambelis
- Posts: 2854
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:26 pm
Re: Proposal - Distance Per Pixel
Apart from the whole 11d bit that says:Craitman wrote:There's nothing in the Charter that says the Council has to vote about things in the Council subforum - so we could even vote on claims in Admin Discussion. We don't, because that'd be dickish, but we do vote on non-claims there.
the Charter wrote:11d)The Council of the Micronational Cartography Society (as defined in section 1) shall post their votes on claims by prospective or existing members in the "Administrative Council" sub-forum of the (as of writing, unnamed) forum hosting the Micronational Cartography Society. This sub-forum shall be made viewable to all members and visitors of the MCS as of the date this amendment is enacted and shall remain viewable to all members and visitors indefinitely.
Again, apart from the bit that says:Craitman wrote:As per 11f, there's nothing that states amendments should be posted in Claims - in fact, we have a public thread for people to air their opinions in... We're posting in it right now
the Charter wrote:11f) ...A new amendment would be made by posting it in the claims forum and then having confirmed representatives from at least 50% of the nations on Micras sign in the claim thread announcing that they agree with the amendment.
I rather assumed that functions of the Council, such as voting on a charter amendment, would be conducted by the Council in the Council subforum. I don't think 11d was deliberately drafted so as to exclude such votes, but it should now be extended to include them. If the council is publicly accountable for its votes on claims then why not its votes on charter amendments?Craitman wrote:I'm just saying that's how we've always done non-claim voting, even after opening the Council, and that way's received no backlash until now. You can complain, I'm not stopping you, but it's been like this for a while, so I just find it a tad confusing to receive complaints after a while.
We could always reconsider the possibility of opening Admin Discussion if needs be. A majority of member votes would do it if enough people thought it necessary
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Proposal - Distance Per Pixel
Apologies on my part for not reading the Charter as in-depth as I should've! Still, 11d mentions only voting on claims and I think it'd be better for non-claim admendments to be discussed and voted-on by the public in this board
Anyway, like I said, if you want to propose a change to the charter, start another thread and we can properly discuss it all there - this one's for the pixel problem
Anyway, like I said, if you want to propose a change to the charter, start another thread and we can properly discuss it all there - this one's for the pixel problem