An Open Letter to the MCS
Moderator: Staff
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
With Spangle gone we already do manual monthly forum post checks. Doing monthly 'expansion eligibility checks' is not only a lot of work, but is pretty much what you're opposing anyway: a numerical system for deciding if you warrant land.
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: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
As I said in response to Edgard's queries, it's actually more the other way round; the quantitative factors (ie. forum activity) generally tend to outweigh the qualitative ones when deciding how much a nation can expand/has to be reduced. This is why Edgard was concerned with Alexandria's reduction as, despite being culturally rich, they were simply not that active.Orion wrote:I think one of the inherent problems with the expansion/reduction system is that it's based on qualitative factors more than quantitative factors. The Council is a panel of judges who are charged with inspecting the quality of work produced by a micronation and, on that basis, granting a quantity of land.
I would, however, be interested in seeing a more calculable way of dealing with claims implemented. As much as opening-up the Council and requesting that members give more expansive reasons behind their voting cleared a few problems, there's still going to be people who are unhappy with the outcomes of their claims regardless. Obviously it would be impossible to make it an exact science or equation, otherwise we'd not take the quality of anything into consideration, but such a direct correlation between activity quantity and land size would a) make the Council obsolete as nothing would need to be judged, and b) undermine the quality of the vast majority of work that nations have achieved. I like the proposed "scale" system (on a one-to-five) primarily, as it mirrors the old claims calculator, despite its unofficial standing and flawed results, but at least it would give a more directly comparable system between all nations.
That is, until we get people complaining about the scores they get for each criterion
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Since the council would assign the values, and reassess the values periodically, it would actually give the council more regular duties - not invalidate it.
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
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
This is what I'd be concerned about with an exact formula. But that said, if we're only updating scores every six months, that takes away the problem of "I've earned 28 more pixels, I'm going to use them now," every month or so; expanding once every six months is a quite reasonable frequency for the older nations. Maybe let new nations be assessed every 3 months for their first year, but otherwise, the 6-monthly approach is a good plan and would resolve some of the problems you'd otherwise have with a direct pixel count amount.joefoxon wrote:But if someone in Shireroth for example spots that according to the formula, they're entitled to 14 pixels, would that really be worth wasting the Council's time for? What amazing piece of development are you going to lose out on for the sake of 14 pixels?
The big question I see, though, is whether we're assessing stocks or flows - and this is where it particularly matters for older nations. Does the fact that you've done lots of cultural development over the first 10 years of your nation, but very little in the last 2, mean that your cultural rating stays high (because we look at the overall cultural level) or drops to almost nothing (because you've done nothing in 'recent' times)? It makes sense that things like activity, recwar or economy are looking at the previous 6 months, but how about cultural/land development?
I'm also thinking you want to make the categories broad enough so that, for example, you don't have to recwar or have to have an economy to be able to do well on all of them. If you were going for all of the specific categories, that could include:
Politics/Government
Laws
Economy/Trade
Diplomacy
Recwar
Roleplaying/Storytelling
Cultural Development
Land Development
Conlang
Sport
Space Travel
Activity
Wiking
...
You'd want to condense some of those. At a first go (and by all means change this around):
Politics/Government/Laws (Internal gov type stuff)
Diplomacy/Recwar/Trade/International Collaboration (External gov type stuff)
Activity/Wiking (as appropriate to the nation)
Cultural Development/Land Development (core development)
Economy/Conlang/Sport/Space Travel/Roleplaying/Storytelling (other development)
The core/other grouping is working on the principle that most nations would be trying to develop their culture and/or land, whereas Economy/Conlang/Sport etc. are things that only some nations do, and most people would be happy to agree that you don't have to have any of those elements to be a fully functional micronation. Incidentally, this would encourage people to interact with each other in a more natural way than making them report here once a month for the first three months to keep their claim moving.
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: An Open Letter to the MCS
I want to reiterate my prior statement about how it would just go hand in hand with scheduled updates, and I don't think it's that big a deal, but having spaced re-assessments does also solve some of that problem.Andreas the Wise wrote:This is what I'd be concerned about with an exact formula. But that said, if we're only updating scores every six months, that takes away the problem of "I've earned 28 more pixels, I'm going to use them now," every month or so; expanding once every six months is a quite reasonable frequency for the older nations. Maybe let new nations be assessed every 3 months for their first year, but otherwise, the 6-monthly approach is a good plan and would resolve some of the problems you'd otherwise have with a direct pixel count amount.joefoxon wrote:But if someone in Shireroth for example spots that according to the formula, they're entitled to 14 pixels, would that really be worth wasting the Council's time for? What amazing piece of development are you going to lose out on for the sake of 14 pixels?
Yeah, I feel like I'm vying for the reclamation of lost Uantiri land when I make comments like 'what we've done in the past should have some bearing on our current placement.' Then again I stress some bearing, as we're judging against an ideal. The ideal is a highly active, highly dedicated, highly detailed nation. If the past 10 years of development prove dedication and have created a lot of detail, sure that makes them more entitled to land than a new nation that is getting by on the merits of activity alone. But it also doesn't mean it deserves all the land they would if they were active, or involved, etc.Andreas the Wise wrote:The big question I see, though, is whether we're assessing stocks or flows - and this is where it particularly matters for older nations. Does the fact that you've done lots of cultural development over the first 10 years of your nation, but very little in the last 2, mean that your cultural rating stays high (because we look at the overall cultural level) or drops to almost nothing (because you've done nothing in 'recent' times)? It makes sense that things like activity, recwar or economy are looking at the previous 6 months, but how about cultural/land development?
I like the second half of this better, in the same way I like the more 'versatile' resource categories used in the new proposed resource map stuff in the other thread. I don't find economies or conlang or sports interesting at all, but if they're just part of a greater category that includes things I like, such as space and history and trade, etc. it makes it easier for two dissimilar nations to be of equal strengths and size because they each have focused strongly in something. Of course the 100% rating nations should really be good at everything, but again, that's because we should judge against the ideal not the average.Andreas the Wise wrote:I'm also thinking you want to make the categories broad enough so that, for example, you don't have to recwar or have to have an economy to be able to do well on all of them. If you were going for all of the specific categories, that could include:
Politics/Government
Laws
Economy/Trade
Diplomacy
Recwar
Roleplaying/Storytelling
Cultural Development
Land Development
Conlang
Sport
Space Travel
Activity
Wiking
...
You'd want to condense some of those. At a first go (and by all means change this around):
Politics/Government/Laws (Internal gov type stuff)
Diplomacy/Recwar/Trade/International Collaboration (External gov type stuff)
Activity/Wiking (as appropriate to the nation)
Cultural Development/Land Development (core development)
Economy/Conlang/Sport/Space Travel/Roleplaying/Storytelling (other development)
Also, while currently involvement in things like the hub forum is not considered a basis for activity, if we're going to use 'international collaboration' or something similar as a rating bulletpoint, forums like this should have some bearing on a nation's international relation's score - as it's a great outlet for people who are uninterested or don't have the time to hunt down a dozen individual forums for the sake of talking to other micronationlists.
Again, I agree, keeping things 'broad' allows people with dissimilar interests to be equally judged, while at the same time giving the opportunity to the really motivated people to shoot for the moon and try to get the top score by doing well in everything we consider influential.Andreas the Wise wrote:The core/other grouping is working on the principle that most nations would be trying to develop their culture and/or land, whereas Economy/Conlang/Sport etc. are things that only some nations do, and most people would be happy to agree that you don't have to have any of those elements to be a fully functional micronation. Incidentally, this would encourage people to interact with each other in a more natural way than making them report here once a month for the first three months to keep their claim moving.
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
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Gunna go down on record here and say that I feel an attempt to make a quantitative formula to judge expansion capability is a terrible idea. If there's anything roughly 15 years of micronations has taught me, its that these formulas bloat rapidly, are incredibly hard to balance, and tedious and boring to maintain. It would create a lot of busy work that doesn't get done because we as a hobby like designing systems a heck of a lot more than we like following them forever. All it would take is one dedicated person exploiting the loopholes and the general apathy of the rest of those involved to bring it down by justifying a massive expansion that doesn't seem quite fair but is supported through manipulation of formulas. Formulaic rewards didn't work in economic sims either hand-calculated or computerlized; it didn't work in Archipelago's expansion credits despite multiple reworks; it didn't work in Nelaga's meritocracy even with a Ministry of Merit to do all the work for people, and it never works for recwars without endless intervention from judges.
I feel that the opposite approach is far more valid - qualitative justification. Make people sell their claims like a job interview. You want to claim an island? Tell me why it should be yours. Show me the recwar where you won it. Show me the people putting in the time and effort to develop that land even before the MCS says yet. And show me your sustained activity overall, and your generally small land size for a country of your activity, and let the council mull this over and decide if the expansion makes sense or not. Give them the benefit of the doubt, judge claims starting in a positive light, but make the countries front-load the work and then bring their results to the council.
One of the traps I fell into in engineering was to think numbers and statistics encouraged fairness. They don't. Especially not when the focus is largely on people. Hiding behind a formula and claiming its fair and balanced never cuts it in the real world, and it won't cut it here either.
I feel that the opposite approach is far more valid - qualitative justification. Make people sell their claims like a job interview. You want to claim an island? Tell me why it should be yours. Show me the recwar where you won it. Show me the people putting in the time and effort to develop that land even before the MCS says yet. And show me your sustained activity overall, and your generally small land size for a country of your activity, and let the council mull this over and decide if the expansion makes sense or not. Give them the benefit of the doubt, judge claims starting in a positive light, but make the countries front-load the work and then bring their results to the council.
One of the traps I fell into in engineering was to think numbers and statistics encouraged fairness. They don't. Especially not when the focus is largely on people. Hiding behind a formula and claiming its fair and balanced never cuts it in the real world, and it won't cut it here either.
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Fuck, I agree with Harvey. Better go kill myself...
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
The concept of "Convince Me" when submitting a claim is the opposite of what we do. We, the council, are neutral. It's not our job to be swayed by someone, it's our job to evaluate a claim based on the same scale we used to evaluate all claims. The map is open, everyone who meets a certain standard is allowed on. The idea that we have to be persuaded into letting people claim is awful. With a statistical framework to use as a guiding line, we can continue to improve upon the 'we're just moderators, not adjudicators' mentality.
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: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
I'll sit firmly in the middle of Harvey and Rook's viewpoints. Adjudicating claims essentially comes down to two factors; activity and culture, and they go hand-in-hand. Claiming isn't an audition, which is the best way I can quickly describe Harvey's point, nor is it a formula. Trying to make the Council's way of working strictly one or the other will just create more of a rift among pretty much everyone, which is sorta the opposite of what we're aiming for with these talks.
Yes, I would like to see something maybe a bit more calculated to allow for a fairer justification of accepting/rejecting claims, but we need to be able to use our personal judgement as to whether a nation's work merits land on the map, and that can't be done solely with an "x = y" equation, otherwise all we'd need to run the Council is a calculator and a cartographer. There needs to be a middle ground...
Yes, I would like to see something maybe a bit more calculated to allow for a fairer justification of accepting/rejecting claims, but we need to be able to use our personal judgement as to whether a nation's work merits land on the map, and that can't be done solely with an "x = y" equation, otherwise all we'd need to run the Council is a calculator and a cartographer. There needs to be a middle ground...
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
I feel like what I've described earlier with my 100 point concept is the middleground you're talking about. Which means I'm not explaining it correctly, so allow me to elaborate (not arguing.)
The points / final score thing would only be used as a way of creating a less subjective method of assigning volume. The values that comprised the final number would still be assigned by council members. I would never advocate replacing the council with a program. The council would judge the worth of the nation by assigning it scores. The final score is a tool, combined with a scale generated and agreed upon, to make a more uniform and unbiased land volume allocation. That's where many of our arguments boil down to, the amount of space people get.
Especially if the scores come from many categories instead of 3 or 4, and the grading system is wider tan a 1-5. It distances the influence of the claimant from the council and puts the focus even more on the nation's merit independent of any individual. I cannot stress how much I, as a fairly tactless diplomat, resent the concept of someone charismatic 'convincing' a judge that they are worth more, even if an objective evaluation of their nation may not have had as much influence.
I don't want to pull any of the judging authority or responsibility away. I think we could do with distancing the subjective and adhoc method of assigning the numerical size from the council though. Council members judge the nation's merit, as always, and their merit has a uniform scale of territory volume assigned to it that is equal for everyone of equal merit.
The points / final score thing would only be used as a way of creating a less subjective method of assigning volume. The values that comprised the final number would still be assigned by council members. I would never advocate replacing the council with a program. The council would judge the worth of the nation by assigning it scores. The final score is a tool, combined with a scale generated and agreed upon, to make a more uniform and unbiased land volume allocation. That's where many of our arguments boil down to, the amount of space people get.
Especially if the scores come from many categories instead of 3 or 4, and the grading system is wider tan a 1-5. It distances the influence of the claimant from the council and puts the focus even more on the nation's merit independent of any individual. I cannot stress how much I, as a fairly tactless diplomat, resent the concept of someone charismatic 'convincing' a judge that they are worth more, even if an objective evaluation of their nation may not have had as much influence.
I don't want to pull any of the judging authority or responsibility away. I think we could do with distancing the subjective and adhoc method of assigning the numerical size from the council though. Council members judge the nation's merit, as always, and their merit has a uniform scale of territory volume assigned to it that is equal for everyone of equal merit.
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
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Perhaps that's the problem. Or at least "a" problem, if not "the" problem. The scale is poorly defined and always has been. What I'm proposing is an open admission that defining the scale quantitatively is neither practical nor beneficial and suggesting that the member nations essentially evaluate for themselves if they deserve an expansion or not. Really, the council doesn't lose its "neutrality" in this issue. YOU guys wouldn't be making the case for or against an expansion; the expanding country would.Rook wrote:The concept of "Convince Me" when submitting a claim is the opposite of what we do. We, the council, are neutral. It's not our job to be swayed by someone, it's our job to evaluate a claim based on the same scale we used to evaluate all claims.
So, in my method, a new country comes to the MCS with a claim. Initial claims would be pretty easy sells, naturally. We want people on the map, so a reasonable claim by a reasonable country doesn't require a lot of justification, merely a review of what's being asked compared to the actual existence of the country. Could easily verify that with a few minutes. Happy approval stamp. No issue.
If its expansions we have to be wary of, well, frankly expansions have always been done my way anyway. Claimants come to the MCS saying "hey we annexed such and such country" or "we agreed to trade this land with these guys, so we get X and they get Y now." That's it. That's the sell. That's all that one needs in these types of situations. I'm not asking for a term paper here, only proof that the land has some significance to the country outside of the claim.
But for some reason people are suggesting that we ignore these events, and plug some sort of activity and current claim size into a formula, and have the formula tell us what should happen. Which flatly ignores the actual micronational happenings between these types of expansions and doesn't even come close to emulating real life conditions at all on Earth. It adds barriers between peoples efforts and peoples results of those efforts. And I ask why.
Now, if you think there are ways to calculate this fairly, then that's technically possible I suppose, assuming people can make the formula and gather the data. But, here's the thing. My way? You could do it today, right now, starting right this minute. All it takes is sending out the word of what is required for claims and confidence in your judgement. But the formula way, that's totally theoretical, and its not showing any particular ways of not being a mere thought experiment. Now, if someone comes up with a formula, I will happily look at it with interest, and will gladly capitulate if I feel it is of superior construction. By all means, do not see my disagreement as discouragement. Number crunchers, crunch away! Let us know when you're done! But please, don't keep us all waiting if you're not working on something real. Because the alternative is very viable too.
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
The scale hasn't been defined at all.SaiKar wrote:Perhaps that's the problem. Or at least "a" problem, if not "the" problem. The scale is poorly defined and always has been.Rook wrote:The concept of "Convince Me" when submitting a claim is the opposite of what we do. We, the council, are neutral. It's not our job to be swayed by someone, it's our job to evaluate a claim based on the same scale we used to evaluate all claims.
Man, it'd be really easy to introspect if there were something to use as perspective besides cultural precedence; which is notoriously inconsistent.SaiKar wrote:What I'm proposing is an open admission that defining the scale quantitatively is neither practical nor beneficial and suggesting that the member nations essentially evaluate for themselves if they deserve an expansion or not.
Apart from the 'couple minutes' part that would happen anyway, as the minimum standards for moderate claims woudl be straightforward and known.SaiKar wrote:So, in my method, a new country comes to the MCS with a claim. Initial claims would be pretty easy sells, naturally. We want people on the map, so a reasonable claim by a reasonable country doesn't require a lot of justification, merely a review of what's being asked compared to the actual existence of the country. Could easily verify that with a few minutes. Happy approval stamp. No issue.
And people aren't happy with the way expansions are being handled.SaiKar wrote:frankly expansions have always been done my way anyway.
And the amount of activity and residule cultural stimulation derived from a valid claim would have direct impact on their score - which someone in this situation would probably be requesting to have prematurely reviewed due to the circumstances of annexation.SaiKar wrote:I'm not asking for a term paper here, only proof that the land has some significance to the country outside of the claim.
Right now we say 'Hey, I don't think that was enough activity for that much land.' An alternative would be 'Hey, that increase in activity correlates to XYZ amount of more land - which is less than what you're asking for.' The latter puts the onus of correctly handling the volume of expanded territory on the claimant while the former makes us look like dicks who are stifling people's cultural advances because we're fuddy-duddy's who are penny pinching our pixels.SaiKar wrote:But for some reason people are suggesting that we ignore these events, and plug some sort of activity and current claim size into a formula, and have the formula tell us what should happen.
Right, because on the MCS people are allowed to wrench land from others by force.SaiKar wrote:Which flatly ignores the actual micronational happenings between these types of expansions and doesn't even come close to emulating real life conditions at all on Earth.
I disagree, it would create structure and perspective.SaiKar wrote:It adds barriers between peoples efforts and peoples results of those efforts. And I ask why.
I'd be happy to start a new thread with my ideas on the subject, if you're honest about being interested in taking it seriously. I don't have a ton of time, and I don't have time to waste on something if it doesn't have support.SaiKar wrote:Now, if you think there are ways to calculate this fairly, then that's technically possible I suppose, assuming people can make the formula and gather the data. But, here's the thing. My way? You could do it today, right now, starting right this minute. All it takes is sending out the word of what is required for claims and confidence in your judgement. But the formula way, that's totally theoretical, and its not showing any particular ways of not being a mere thought experiment. Now, if someone comes up with a formula, I will happily look at it with interest, and will gladly capitulate if I feel it is of superior construction. By all means, do not see my disagreement as discouragement. Number crunchers, crunch away! Let us know when you're done! But please, don't keep us all waiting if you're not working on something real. Because the alternative is very viable too.
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
- Erwin V.H.
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 1:38 pm
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Perhaps (well, definitely) a bit late, but Flanders' parliament has agreed to sign this letter, although it takes the liberty to make reservations against some minor points (especially the ones made in in the section about quality and realism).
Governor of the Northern Beneluccas
Former President of the Republic of Flanders
http://vlaanderen.micronatie.nl/forum
Former President of the Republic of Flanders
http://vlaanderen.micronatie.nl/forum
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Sorry I've not been too vocal on this topic for the past few days; lack of computer access + sorting house move + job interviews = blergh. As things seem to be at a bit of a stalemate, albeit with some of the more major aspects of the letter at an agreement, should I start working on some official wording for potential Charter section updates?
-
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:15 pm
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
A High Priestess wishes to convey that in her most humple opinion the MCS Administrator-General should go head with the above.Craitman wrote:As things seem to be at a bit of a stalemate, albeit with some of the more major aspects of the letter at an agreement, should I start working on some official wording for potential Charter section updates?
Sigrdrífa the Priestess of the House of Vanadís
Ærkejarla of Thingeyri and the Idunn Isles
Yfirstormarksgythia and High Priestess of the Thingeyri Temple
Ærkejarla of Thingeyri and the Idunn Isles
Yfirstormarksgythia and High Priestess of the Thingeyri Temple