[BAT] removal discussion
Moderator: Staff
[BAT] removal discussion
Perhaps we could start a few days earlier with preparing the removal of Batavia (st. Koningenwaarde). The exact date that the nation would be declared inactive is December 5th.
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
1. I've moved this thread as the "Claims" boards are for claims only, not asking questions.
2. Going by my ForumList data, which the MCS uses to gauge activity and necessary removals, Batavia ('s-Koningenwaarde) still received a post in October. I'm not sure where you got December 5th from, as I do the forum checks on (or very close to) the first of each month, but to have three consecutive months' complete inactivity (November, December and January), we'd remove Batavia at the beginning of February, assuming nobody posted during that period. However, if a nation's only had one post over the course of three months, we'll probably be a bit more lenient; so (again, as long as nobody's posted since that October post) we would be able to forcefully remove Batavia at the start of January.
3. How many more times do I have to explain that we only forcefully remove nations after three months' inactivity? Crikey...
2. Going by my ForumList data, which the MCS uses to gauge activity and necessary removals, Batavia ('s-Koningenwaarde) still received a post in October. I'm not sure where you got December 5th from, as I do the forum checks on (or very close to) the first of each month, but to have three consecutive months' complete inactivity (November, December and January), we'd remove Batavia at the beginning of February, assuming nobody posted during that period. However, if a nation's only had one post over the course of three months, we'll probably be a bit more lenient; so (again, as long as nobody's posted since that October post) we would be able to forcefully remove Batavia at the start of January.
3. How many more times do I have to explain that we only forcefully remove nations after three months' inactivity? Crikey...
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
fineCraitman wrote:1. I've moved this thread as the "Claims" boards are for claims only, not asking questions.
Yes, that post was made by me, as a non-citizen. If it still counts, I would be more than happy to delete it. The post before that dates from September 5th, hence my assumption of December 5th being the date the nation would be declared inactive.2. Going by my ForumList data, which the MCS uses to gauge activity and necessary removals, Batavia ('s-Koningenwaarde) still received a post in October. I'm not sure where you got December 5th from, as I do the forum checks on (or very close to) the first of each month, but to have three consecutive months' complete inactivity (November, December and January), we'd remove Batavia at the beginning of February, assuming nobody posted during that period. However, if a nation's only had one post over the course of three months, we'll probably be a bit more lenient; so (again, as long as nobody's posted since that October post) we would be able to forcefully remove Batavia at the start of January.
Porque las estirpes condenadas a cien años de soledad no tenían una segunda oportunidad sobre la tierra.
-
- Posts: 1351
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:27 pm
- Contact:
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
I assume that Jack wants to claim 'his' Brettish Isles.
Honoured Servant of the Jingdaoese Heavenly Light and the Kaiseress of Shireroth
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
The MCS' policy can be quickly summarised as "not easy to get on, not easy to get off." If this Batavia is formally ended, some evidence should be provided; if it is inactive for three months, i.e. totally dead, it should be removed. Any other motive for removing them from the map is not recognised by the Council or Charter, it is not for anyone but the Batavians to say they should leave unless they are no more, and under our definitions that does not appear to be the case.
Jack: if you're wanting to claim these islands, as Jonas suggests, you should remember that we have a three-month age limit as well, and the Brettish Islands are only just a month old. It may not be in your interest to bang this particular drum at the moment.
Jack: if you're wanting to claim these islands, as Jonas suggests, you should remember that we have a three-month age limit as well, and the Brettish Islands are only just a month old. It may not be in your interest to bang this particular drum at the moment.
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
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
After removal of Batavia, Nova Batavia will continue independently and change it's name to Brettish Isles.
Porque las estirpes condenadas a cien años de soledad no tenían una segunda oportunidad sobre la tierra.
-
- Administrator General
- Posts: 4335
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:58 pm
- Location: Republic of Mercury
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
Maybe we could change the rules then, so that nations that want to be removed, but can't due to the three-month clause can be removed after one month if no posts are made in that time. This makes it very easy for them to change their minds, as all they have to do is make one post, and a month is plenty of time to change your mind.
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
That seems like gamesmanship... very unVictorian.Jack wrote:After removal of Batavia, Nova Batavia will continue independently and change it's name to Brettish Isles.
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
Activity isn't biased toward nationality. Any posts made by actual people (no spambots or automated posts) still count, of course!Jack wrote:Yes, that post was made by me, as a non-citizen. If it still counts, I would be more than happy to delete it. The post before that dates from September 5th, hence my assumption of December 5th being the date the nation would be declared inactive.
Don't forget the one month's "grace period" which follows any forced removal too, in which no other nation can claim the vacated land...Benkern wrote:Jack: if you're wanting to claim these islands, as Jonas suggests, you should remember that we have a three-month age limit as well, and the Brettish Islands are only just a month old. It may not be in your interest to bang this particular drum at the moment.
You're confusing rules, Joe. Nations can remove themselves at any time, regardless of activity levels, as long as an official representative submits it (and it's not against the wishes of the nation's government) - like Gerenia have done, for example. What's happened here is that the Batavians have seemingly revoked their citizenships without either officially calling time on the nation's existence or submitting a removal. As such, with no removal submitted, all we can do is wait for three months' consecutive inactivity to be obliged to forcefully remove themjoefoxon wrote:Maybe we could change the rules then, so that nations that want to be removed, but can't due to the three-month clause can be removed after one month if no posts are made in that time.
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
Isn't this a flaw in the rules then? The nation is clearly inactive but we are unable to remove it.
Or the MCS could just recognize the independence of the Brettish Isles...
Or the MCS could just recognize the independence of the Brettish Isles...
Porque las estirpes condenadas a cien años de soledad no tenían una segunda oportunidad sobre la tierra.
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
Was Nova Batavia recognised as the Brettish Isles during Batavian activity? If so surely they are like a successor state in some way. For example, if the Commonwealth of Hamland were to become inactive and the region of San Luis decided to keep going I would imagine it would be able to keep its land. Ignoring the fact it would have been inactive but old enough to get on, it would have existed as part of a state previously.
It throws up questions regarding removals and regional government structures. Also in terms of unilateral claims of independence.
Could the Brettish Isles not claim they are continuation of the previous government too? If senior people from the old state continued through it surely there could be a claim there?
I'm just trying to test the extent of the rules here.
It throws up questions regarding removals and regional government structures. Also in terms of unilateral claims of independence.
Could the Brettish Isles not claim they are continuation of the previous government too? If senior people from the old state continued through it surely there could be a claim there?
I'm just trying to test the extent of the rules here.
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
The problem is that I am technically not a Batavian citizen anymore, and even though everyone knows that I was very clearly present in the nation for quite some time and developped Nova Batavia, I think that technically there might be a difficulty there.
Porque las estirpes condenadas a cien años de soledad no tenían una segunda oportunidad sobre la tierra.
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
I think that the MCS should take a good look at the rules. We see that the green areas on Micras are getting larger and larger, and I think it is not a good thing that an active nation like the Brettish Isles has to wait so long before admission.
Porque las estirpes condenadas a cien años de soledad no tenían una segunda oportunidad sobre la tierra.
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
If there is so much green why not claim some of it instead of trying to kick more ancient nations from the map? To me, as someone who has been involved in Batavia a lot, the Brettish Isles are just a new nation trying to take Batavia's territory, not a seccession because most citizens weren't involved in Nova Batavia at all, Jack did of course write some minor stuff but I did never see why he would need to seccede at all. He could very well have continued to work within the Batavian framework, his political ideals are very close to the Batavian ideals.
I would also point out that Batavia has been considered dead in the past but that it came back then, only to fall apart because of personal feuds. I have e-mailed Gustav to see if he wants to do something with it, if not he could be the person to declare it dead as he now seems to be the undisputed ruler of Batavia - 's Koningenwaarde.
I would also point out that Batavia has been considered dead in the past but that it came back then, only to fall apart because of personal feuds. I have e-mailed Gustav to see if he wants to do something with it, if not he could be the person to declare it dead as he now seems to be the undisputed ruler of Batavia - 's Koningenwaarde.
Re: [BAT] removal discussion
Don't be a fucking hypocrite, Erasmus. You don't care about Batavia, as you have said multiple times.Jezza Rasmus wrote:If there is so much green why not claim some of it instead of trying to kick more ancient nations from the map? To me, as someone who has been involved in Batavia a lot, the Brettish Isles are just a new nation trying to take Batavia's territory, not a seccession because most citizens weren't involved in Nova Batavia at all, Jack did of course write some minor stuff but I did never see why he would need to seccede at all. He could very well have continued to work within the Batavian framework, his political ideals are very close to the Batavian ideals.
I would also point out that Batavia has been considered dead in the past but that it came back then, only to fall apart because of personal feuds. I have e-mailed Gustav to see if he wants to do something with it, if not he could be the person to declare it dead as he now seems to be the undisputed ruler of Batavia - 's Koningenwaarde.
For anyone else, let me explain the situation. After Jonas, Erasmus and I revived Batavia for the first time (I think it was around June of this year) the people from Flanders began to rebel. We concluded that it would be better to drop the Batavian project (at least, Jonas and Erasmus did). I went on with Batavia together with Gustaaf. We established a treaty and we moved on with the project. Sadly, this did not last very long, in an effort to please the Flemings and to try to reunite Batavia, Gustaaf promised them things on which I could not agree, for that reason, I left the nation. After that, in September of this year, Batavia became inactive and Gustaaf has not been online since. I have tried to contact him several times but he has not responded.
Some time ago, I came up with a project i had been thinking about for some time, the Brettish Isles. Now that Batavia was inactive and the people involved were clearly done with the project, I concluded that I could use the small part of Batavia, Nova Batavia, for this project. (note that when Jonas, Erasmus and I revived Batavia for the first time, they did not want to claim the islands, I wanted this however because I wanted to develop it).
Now, I do not necessarily want Batavia to be removed, but it almost seemed like the only option because the MCS has not accepted the independence of the Brettish Isles.
I do not see why a small part of an inactive nation should not be able to seceede now that someone clearly has plans with it. It is my belief that the MCS should stimulate activity and not work against it.
Of course we could wait for our three months to be over and claim some entirely different part of Micras, but look at all the unnecessary obstacles and unpleasantness that this will create. I have to make new maps, and most of all, we have to wait for more than a month, and that whilst there is a small piece of land just on the map without any activity.
Porque las estirpes condenadas a cien años de soledad no tenían una segunda oportunidad sobre la tierra.