New Charter! (not an awful one)
Moderator: Staff
- Guido Zambelis
- Posts: 2854
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:26 pm
New Charter! (not an awful one)
For some time the MCS has been hobbling along on a range of ill-defined written regulations and unwritten principles. Although it may be acceptable to run a medium-sized nation along such lines, it is less appropriate for an organisation such as this. To this end, and to satisfy my fetish for writing legislation, I present to you my Draft Charter of the Micronational Cartography Society (it's a PDF set in a serif font, what more do you want?)
There aren't any major changes that I can think of, it's more a way of streamlining and codifying in one document a whole lot of "stuff" that we've been operating with until now. I strongly recommend you read the explanatory notes, which are written in English (not legalese) and should be a whole lot easier to understand.
I will, naturally, answer any questions!
There aren't any major changes that I can think of, it's more a way of streamlining and codifying in one document a whole lot of "stuff" that we've been operating with until now. I strongly recommend you read the explanatory notes, which are written in English (not legalese) and should be a whole lot easier to understand.
I will, naturally, answer any questions!
- Guido Zambelis
- Posts: 2854
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:26 pm
-
- Posts: 626
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:11 pm
- Location: Vanadísarhall, Haraldsborg, Gularike, Stormark.
- Contact:
Re: New Charter! (not an awful one)
Would there be any effect to noting a dispute or disagreement?(3) Members shall not involve the Society in territorial disputes or political disagreements. Where a dispute arises, it is up to the parties involved to solve their issues without involvement of the Society. The Society shall note such disputes and disagreements.
Harald Freyjugjöf the Generous Giver of the House of the Descendants of Freyja
High King of Stormark
Sovereign Lord on all Continents
High King of Stormark
Sovereign Lord on all Continents
- pawelabrams
- Posts: 3207
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:14 pm
- Location: Novograd, Interland
- Contact:
Re: New Charter! (not an awful one)
Perhaps it could be done by putting a 'war' symbol on the map...
Pavel' Abramovic:, the President of Interland
IRL just a random guy from Poland. Still learning English.
IRL just a random guy from Poland. Still learning English.
- Guido Zambelis
- Posts: 2854
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:26 pm
Re: New Charter! (not an awful one)
It's the original wording - the MCS "notes" so the complaints don't think they're being totally ignored, and it also has the effect of having whining trolls think that people are listening to them. It has no practical effect or implication.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: New Charter! (not an awful one)
I have to admit, I do like it... especially the serif font
-
- Posts: 626
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:11 pm
- Location: Vanadísarhall, Haraldsborg, Gularike, Stormark.
- Contact:
Re: New Charter! (not an awful one)
13. Land
(1) Subject to subsection (2), a member of the Society shall not have the right to claim any part of the map other than land.
(2) A member shall have the right to:
(a) make small claims on ice where that ice is in reasonable proximity to land claimed by them, and
(b) make claims on islands too small to be displayed on the map, that is to say of a size smaller than one half of a pixel.
(3) A member or a state applying for membership of the Society shall not have the right to claim land within the area of the claim of a member of the Society or any part thereof.
The new charter repeals all previous rules and regulations including the pivotal rule that no member may claim the land of another member. I would like to propose that that provision be added to the new charter.
Harald Freyjugjöf the Generous Giver of the House of the Descendants of Freyja
High King of Stormark
Sovereign Lord on all Continents
High King of Stormark
Sovereign Lord on all Continents
- Guido Zambelis
- Posts: 2854
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:26 pm
Re: New Charter! (not an awful one)
There is no such provision existing at the moment, and for good reason. Such a prohibition would artificially prevent claims such as Babkha's to the Mahoz region. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable for a member state to lay claim to the entire map. Marking such a claim is a different matter altogether, and section 16(6) effectively provides that the council retain "any other powers exercisable by the Council by right", so the power to refuse to mark a claim because a claim is already marked in respect of that particular area of land would fall into this provision.
Re: New Charter! (not an awful one)
In this regard the role of the MCS is to document the dispute, not mediate it. Same as a journalist documents an ongoing war between two parties, but has no role in mediating that dispute. Members retain the right to lodge a dispute with the MCS in the form of overlapping claims, war, revolution, civil war, terrorism, and so on and so forth, so that it may be accurately modeled on the map. That is why such icons are available in the legend. There is no mediation of the dispute involved.(3) Members shall not involve the Society in territorial disputes or political disagreements. Where a dispute arises, it is up to the parties involved to solve their issues without involvement of the Society. The Society shall note such disputes and disagreements.
Re: New Charter! (not an awful one)
Am I correct to believe that this is merely a rewrite using stronger, less confusing language and that attempts have been made to not actually alter the content of the Charter?
The problem with that theory, Ryan, is that often one side will say "We claim land X! Civil war!" and the other side will say "There is no dispute in land X. The government is in full control. Those guys are a raving outlaw minority." So, by marking the territory as in dispute, the MCS is effectively validiating the position of the rebels.Ryan wrote:In this regard the role of the MCS is to document the dispute, not mediate it. Same as a journalist documents an ongoing war between two parties, but has no role in mediating that dispute. Members retain the right to lodge a dispute with the MCS in the form of overlapping claims, war, revolution, civil war, terrorism, and so on and so forth, so that it may be accurately modeled on the map. That is why such icons are available in the legend. There is no mediation of the dispute involved.
-
- Posts: 626
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:11 pm
- Location: Vanadísarhall, Haraldsborg, Gularike, Stormark.
- Contact:
Re: New Charter! (not an awful one)
I beg to disagree. There is such an MCS policy, and for very good reason. The policy I'm referring to has been in force since late 2005 and under it claiming land already held by another nation, in the sense of officially going to the MCS and submitting a claim for the purposes of having it marked on the map, is disallowed and such submitted claims will be denied. The policy has been very succesfully used by many nations to fend off other nations eyeing their lands.Guido Zambelis wrote:There is no such provision existing at the moment, and for good reason.
The policy doesn't do that so Babkha is free to claim whatever it likes. If they would, however, officially submit a claim concerning the Mahoz region to the MCS it will be denied.Guido Zambelis wrote:Such a prohibition would artificially prevent claims such as Babkha's to the Mahoz region.
Harald Freyjugjöf the Generous Giver of the House of the Descendants of Freyja
High King of Stormark
Sovereign Lord on all Continents
High King of Stormark
Sovereign Lord on all Continents
- Guido Zambelis
- Posts: 2854
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:26 pm
Re: New Charter! (not an awful one)
I believe so - I can't be exactly sure having spent so long on it! I might have added in some extremely-obvious things, I think, but nothing too groundbreaking that I can recall. I would invite others to look over it though and help!SaiKar wrote:Am I correct to believe that this is merely a rewrite using stronger, less confusing language and that attempts have been made to not actually alter the content of the Charter?
That's long been a problem. I think the position should be something like: if the rebels' claim is remotely valid, then there will have been a corresponding activity drop in the "government" state, so that land can be allocated to the rebels. Got to consider it on a case-by-case basis though really.SaiKar wrote:The problem with that theory, Ryan, is that often one side will say "We claim land X! Civil war!" and the other side will say "There is no dispute in land X. The government is in full control. Those guys are a raving outlaw minority." So, by marking the territory as in dispute, the MCS is effectively validiating the position of the rebels.Ryan wrote:In this regard the role of the MCS is to document the dispute, not mediate it. Same as a journalist documents an ongoing war between two parties, but has no role in mediating that dispute. Members retain the right to lodge a dispute with the MCS in the form of overlapping claims, war, revolution, civil war, terrorism, and so on and so forth, so that it may be accurately modeled on the map. That is why such icons are available in the legend. There is no mediation of the dispute involved.
There are two separate issues here: claiming in the broad sense of the word, and having a claim marked on the map by the Society. Nations can make claims to whatever they want, but the MCS doesn't have to mark those claims on the map. There is no written policy at all on this matter, it is an accepted and obvious principle that one piece of land cannot be marked as being held by two nations simultaneously (unless by mutual agreement). Either way, as it is not written down anywhere, the introduction of this charter would not affect that at all.High King Harald wrote:I beg to disagree. There is such an MCS policy, and for very good reason. The policy I'm referring to has been in force since late 2005 and under it claiming land already held by another nation, in the sense of officially going to the MCS and submitting a claim for the purposes of having it marked on the map, is disallowed and such submitted claims will be denied. The policy has been very succesfully used by many nations to fend off other nations eyeing their lands.Guido Zambelis wrote:There is no such provision existing at the moment, and for good reason.
The policy doesn't do that so Babkha is free to claim whatever it likes. If they would, however, officially submit a claim concerning the Mahoz region to the MCS it will be denied.Guido Zambelis wrote:Such a prohibition would artificially prevent claims such as Babkha's to the Mahoz region.
Re: New Charter! (not an awful one)
Section 6, subsection [1] and [3] both reference subsection [5], which doesn't exist,
Also, am I understanding section 6 correctly that it's just a fancy way of saying 'if someone doesn't show up to vote someone else will poke him to make sure he's paying attention' and if that doesn't work hope the Junior member's around somewhere? Don't you already do that, without needing legalese to say so? How about something a little more firm, like if a Council Member is absent for X number of days his vote is automatically counted as an abstain. That way you wont have claims sitting in perpetual pergatory while 'reasonable endeavours' to contact the wayward voter are being attempted.
Also, am I understanding section 6 correctly that it's just a fancy way of saying 'if someone doesn't show up to vote someone else will poke him to make sure he's paying attention' and if that doesn't work hope the Junior member's around somewhere? Don't you already do that, without needing legalese to say so? How about something a little more firm, like if a Council Member is absent for X number of days his vote is automatically counted as an abstain. That way you wont have claims sitting in perpetual pergatory while 'reasonable endeavours' to contact the wayward voter are being attempted.
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
- Guido Zambelis
- Posts: 2854
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:26 pm
Re: New Charter! (not an awful one)
There are a lot of things we do at the moment that aren't properly written-down (codified). There's no reason not to write it down!King Ailin of Uantir wrote:Section 6, subsection [1] and [3] both reference subsection [5], which doesn't exist,
Also, am I understanding section 6 correctly that it's just a fancy way of saying 'if someone doesn't show up to vote someone else will poke him to make sure he's paying attention' and if that doesn't work hope the Junior member's around somewhere? Don't you already do that, without needing legalese to say so? How about something a little more firm, like if a Council Member is absent for X number of days his vote is automatically counted as an abstain. That way you wont have claims sitting in perpetual pergatory while 'reasonable endeavours' to contact the wayward voter are being attempted.
Thank you for pointing this out! The section was badly worded as well, so I've re-written it. However, I was merely re-writing what already existed - I've tried not to introduce new provisions or change existing ones as much as possible, so as to make the adoption process easier. If we want to make the procedure tighter, then can I suggest that this is done by amendment after is is adopted?
The effect is now that:6. Absence of Council Members
(1) Subsection (4) applies if both of the conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied.
(2) The conditions are that the Council Member:
(a) has not voted on any matter within a period of 14 days, and
(b) has not given notice, by way of posting in the thread entitled “The LOA Thread” in the “Notices” subforum, of his intended absence.
(3) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, subsection (4) shall not apply if the Council Member in question gives notice, by way of posting in the thread entitled “Register thread” in the “Council” subforum, of his continued activity.
(4) Where this subsection applies, another Council Member shall, by all reasonable endeavours, attempt to contact the Council Member in question and alert him to that fact.
- if a Council Member doesn't vote for 14 days, and doesn't post in the LOA thread, then he gets a warning
- if he then doesn't post a vote, or post in the LOA/register threads, within 7 days, he will be sacked.
I agree that it should be tightened, but there are a whole lot of other changes that should also be made, so I'd like leave them all to until this is passed.
Re: New Charter! (not an awful one)
It's in the right direction.. I think that's my only pet peeve with the MCS, when you're in the groove claims are taken care of like that, but sometimes people forget about it forever. I don't know if the person should be sacked necessarily, but their vote can just be automatically calculated as an abstain. It ensures that those who actually vote have their votes counted, and those who don't have their vote count as much as it's worth (nothing.) If it's a repeat thing then it should be grounds for dismissal. Just because they miss one vote, doesn't mean they need to get canned, but it does mean they need to be left behind and get the damn claim resolved.
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