[BAT] removal discussion
Moderator: Staff
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
Wiki nations don't typically use forums and are judged on a different scale.
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
This is actually a good option, of course they still have to exist 90 days before the Brettish can claim. The thing that surprises me is that so many of the people who are now complaining about the policy of the MCS are or have been members of the council (Ric, Orion and Benkern). I would think it would be more fair to propose new rules for the MCS than try to make the MCS grant an exception for your own projects.Elijah Ayreon wrote:Under the current Charter, where the average posts of a member has become less than 1 post per day in a 60-day period, the Council can force a reduction.
Why not use this? There is clearly no future for Batavia's role on those islands, and Jack and his team seem to really want to develop them.
Come on...
-
- Administrator General
- Posts: 4335
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:58 pm
- Location: Republic of Mercury
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
I think he'd be classed as an experienced micronationalist, so we'd probably allow 60 days instead of 90.
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
What we of course could do it, after the Brettish Isles exist for 3 months, the MCS accepts the brettish claim on the islands regardless of what Batavia does. I don't necessarily need Batavia to be removed, but it would be just silly to let a dead (or near dead) nation keep control of the islands while we know that they would never do something with it.
Porque las estirpes condenadas a cien años de soledad no tenían una segunda oportunidad sobre la tierra.
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
My bad.joefoxon wrote:I think he'd be classed as an experienced micronationalist, so we'd probably allow 60 days instead of 90.
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
I also think it would be a good idea to re-examine the MCS rules in a calm, sensible, coherent and constructive fashion. We have to face the reality that they were written at a time when our sector was a very different beast and so some sort of update is arguably overdue.Jezza Rasmus wrote:I would think it would be more fair to propose new rules for the MCS than try to make the MCS grant an exception for your own projects.
Rossheim, who acts as various members of the eponymous family including but not limited to:
*The Lichqueens Mira Raynora Major, Mira Raynora Minor and Lyssansa of Lichbrook
*The Kings Max I of Leichenberg and Max II of Steeria
*The King Sadamara Aptrgangr of Riskai and the Idunn Isles
*The Lichqueens Mira Raynora Major, Mira Raynora Minor and Lyssansa of Lichbrook
*The Kings Max I of Leichenberg and Max II of Steeria
*The King Sadamara Aptrgangr of Riskai and the Idunn Isles
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
I was never on the Council. I ran things before there was a Council and had unilateral authority to waive certain limitations when the case warranted such.Jezza Rasmus wrote:The thing that surprises me is that so many of the people who are now complaining about the policy of the MCS are or have been members of the council (Ric, Orion and Benkern). I would think it would be more fair to propose new rules for the MCS than try to make the MCS grant an exception for your own projects.
It may not be a bad idea to review the rules and charter. There's no question that certain aspects are out of date, especially considering some were written by me a decade ago. I'll see if I can find some time to ponder over refinement proposals during Christmas break. I've been wanting to put together a charter for the MAS anyways, so that'll be a good opportunity.
-
- Administrator General
- Posts: 4335
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:58 pm
- Location: Republic of Mercury
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
I don't know what the rules are for posting disputed claims, but I assume you could do that, and then when Batavia is finally removed, the land would be transferred to the Brettish Isles. Obviously the two-month rule would still apply.Jack wrote:What we of course could do it, after the Brettish Isles exist for 3 months, the MCS accepts the brettish claim on the islands regardless of what Batavia does. I don't necessarily need Batavia to be removed, but it would be just silly to let a dead (or near dead) nation keep control of the islands while we know that they would never do something with it.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
The rule you're thinking of states that a <1 PPD average has to be sustained over three months to constitute a forced reduction, not two months. So, even if we were to utilise a reduction rather than forced removal (which would be pointless as the "deadlines" would occur at the same time), the Brettish Isles would be no better off!Elijah Ayreon wrote:Under the current Charter, where the average posts of a member has become less than 1 post per day in a 60-day period, the Council can force a reduction.
Why not use this? There is clearly no future for Batavia's role on those islands, and Jack and his team seem to really want to develop them.
Come on...
There's one major flaw in your thinking; you resigned your Batavian citizenship. As such, the Brettish Isles aren't a secession from Batavia and so can't just take any of Batavia's land. Trust me, I've looked at the possibilities, and I've told you the only way things are gonna work...Jack wrote:What we of course could do it, after the Brettish Isles exist for 3 months, the MCS accepts the brettish claim on the islands regardless of what Batavia does.
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
Orion pointed out to me that my resignation of Batavia was not recognized by anyone in Batavia. So one could argue that my resignation was technically not confirmed.
Porque las estirpes condenadas a cien años de soledad no tenían una segunda oportunidad sobre la tierra.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
Why would anyone have to confirm it? You wanted out, so you left; you've not been kept there against your will because nobody "confirmed" that fact.
I'd stop now, if I were you. This is beginning to sound too much like straw-clutching, trying to find any technicality to change the situation...
I'd stop now, if I were you. This is beginning to sound too much like straw-clutching, trying to find any technicality to change the situation...
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
Well, if the opinion of the MCS is that it is better that an inactive nation holds a small island and that way prevents that a new and active nation can develop that area, then I will have to rest my case.
Porque las estirpes condenadas a cien años de soledad no tenían una segunda oportunidad sobre la tierra.
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
This is not really a matter of what's best, but what's in the rulebook.Jack wrote:Well, if the opinion of the MCS is that it is better that an inactive nation holds a small island and that way prevents that a new and active nation can develop that area, then I will have to rest my case.
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
This map is the basis for intermicronational activity for many nations, most of whom I imagine strongly value the integrity of their claims. As I said much earlier - hard to get on, hard to get off. Since the modern MCS has operated, we have respected nation's claims until it is absolutely clear they are dead. Some people like Erasmus say the Dutch nations, including Batavia, go up and down in activity and that Batavia may come back. I don't care about his opinion, though it is probably correct, because I know from personal experience that nations can come back from the utter brink of ruin and activity - my favourite example is Shireroth, now and for much of its existence one of the most active nations around, but historically and often for a long time very much near death. Take from this what you will, I don't think you're looking at this objectively, merely from the point of view of how to get the Brettish Isles the land you want. What would happen if Batavia resurrected itself tomorrow and we had made an exception for your nation? We would have broken the rules, which may be or not just, but certainly are currently the terms under which this Society operates, and have to face very unfortunate consequences.Jack wrote:Well, if the opinion of the MCS is that it is better that an inactive nation holds a small island and that way prevents that a new and active nation can develop that area, then I will have to rest my case.
Formerly His Imperial Niftiness Yardistanislaus du Grifos, former Kaiser of Shireroth
Now just Vilhelm Benkern, Count of Mar Sara
Suzerain of Hawshire // Peil̊åkti an Ixraǔtn | Protector of the Safir // Xonuti Shawa 'allumi Sanilla'i'i | King of the Free State of Sanilla
Now just Vilhelm Benkern, Count of Mar Sara
Suzerain of Hawshire // Peil̊åkti an Ixraǔtn | Protector of the Safir // Xonuti Shawa 'allumi Sanilla'i'i | King of the Free State of Sanilla
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
It's more the MCS's policy on removals, really. The only opinion involved is that you should've ended Batavia properly rather than just get-out and then try to piss about with it after you'd left. Hopefully you'll rightly put your efforts towards the continued development of the Brettish Isles than any vendettas against Batavia's land holdings for the next month or so...Jack wrote:Well, if the opinion of the MCS is that it is better that an inactive nation holds a small island and that way prevents that a new and active nation can develop that area, then I will have to rest my case.