An Open Letter to the MCS
Moderator: Staff
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Man, I thought all the 13 year olds either grew up or moved on. Just because you write a letter, doesn't mean everyone is going to go "By gods - this letter! The error of our ways! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"Yastreb wrote:So in short, for all the due consideration that has been given, the MCS will do precisely nothing in response to this letter.
Seriously. As was mentioned earlier, that 'majority' is just a clique wanting more space on the map, and trying to justify it. Then, when we call you on it in pretty polite terms, we get told that we're intractable? The MCS serves everyone, not just the majority, or the loudest minority. Your wants do not outweigh the council's responsibility to serve the community in its entirety. Many of your proposals change the rules to favor good old boys clubs, and does little to make things more accessible to new people, or to smaller people on a meaningful level. One man nation and low activity nations are used as red herrings for what is really going on.
And even with all that no one dismissed the letter outright. No one has written your letter or concerns off. Multiple people have written itemized responses, line by line, responding to every request with their opinions and experiences that lead us to believe that those changes would have negative impacts, as well as posing examples of what those detrimental consequences may have been or already have been in the past. Many have offered other solutions, or compromises. We gave you the discussion you wanted, but instead you're complaining like a 5 year old we didn't rename the thread "The Convention These Guys Wanted Convention In Regards to Their Letter Asking for a Convention to Change the MCS for Their Benefit Convention." Plus we've taken your good ideas, because they exist, and not only acknowledged them but have discussed ways to put them into action.
I really don't see how it could have gone any better, unless what the real goal was the supplication of the council, Craitman's abdication, and the carte blanche instigation of all your policies... but really, anyone who actually thought that would happen is an idiot. We've given genuinely diplomatic and genial responses to an excoriating accusation that the council is a bunch of curmudgeon old twats set in their ways who don't give a shit about anyone else, and somehow the impression I get is that isn't even good enough.
There are 35 nations with territory on the map at this time. You have 9 signatories to your letter. The MCS is a neutral society, a record keeping society, and not an arbitrator and we only judge nations so far as we need to for the sake of keeping it all balanced and fair. We have to serve every single nation, and every future prospective nation, identically and by the same set of rules. The 9 nations that have come together to post this letter constitute 25.7% of the political demographic. Somehow I doubt that 25% of the nations on the map have 90% or even 75% of the mictonationalists on the map. If every nation that didn't get to work on and sign your letter had only one person per nation, you'd have to have 27 people in those 9 signing nations to constitute even a simple majority, much less some overwhelming one.
I don't have the patience to quote and format pieces of your letter and take it point at a time. I've given my general opinions and haven't really seen much counter discussion, just complaining. You guys are getting about the best you could have expected out of this whole ordeal, I suggest you run with it and join the conversation we're all willing to have with you, and remove the arrogant expectation that because you said something everyone is going to cow tow to 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
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Just as a bye-point to your above post, Rook, don't forget that Yastreb's comments don't represent those of everyone who has had input in this letter, similar to how ours aren't the views of the entire Council. Not having a go, but previous discussions regarding changing the MCS's policies have occasionally sunk to finger-pointing and name-calling with no beneficial outcomes, so wait until a few more signatories have replied before saying everyone's just whinging
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
That's fair, the original draft of that post had a lot more 'yous' than 'theys' but I felt that came off as little too personally attacking. It was a lament against the general opinion and mood of not just that individual post, but the open letter and the general feeling I'm getting off of that entire camp in this discussion.
But I agree, I'm sure there are more level headed and adult signatories and I look forward to them joining the discussion as opposed to the emotional conflict. I welcome those people, but my prior post still remains as a condemnation of those who are thinking and responding in the manner addressed in said post.
Also the sticking point about 'we're the majority and this is what we want' still irks me, as it's mathematically inaccurate and an academically dishonest point to argue. If the signatories concede that claim it would add legitimacy to their cause and be a show of good will indicating that they are here to have a conversation that can lead to improving the MCS and are not just trying to bully the council and other nations into getting their way.
But I agree, I'm sure there are more level headed and adult signatories and I look forward to them joining the discussion as opposed to the emotional conflict. I welcome those people, but my prior post still remains as a condemnation of those who are thinking and responding in the manner addressed in said post.
Also the sticking point about 'we're the majority and this is what we want' still irks me, as it's mathematically inaccurate and an academically dishonest point to argue. If the signatories concede that claim it would add legitimacy to their cause and be a show of good will indicating that they are here to have a conversation that can lead to improving the MCS and are not just trying to bully the council and other nations into getting their way.
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
As do I. Preferably with people who don't call me a "13 year old", a proponent of the "Old Boys' Club", an "idiot", and "arrogant". It's not much to ask; Craitman manages to articulate his points without propping himself up with such vitriol. As a result I'm far more inclined to listen to him, and to disregard you.rook wrote:I'm sure there are more level headed and adult signatories and I look forward to them joining the discussion as opposed to the emotional conflict.
I never demanded - or expected - the MCS' immediate capitulation. I was simply bewildered that the letter has not been treated any more seriously than a petition from an individual member. If it takes a majority of members to reach a decision, all well and good. But if it takes a majority to even get the issue looked at in a formal manner, the MCS can naturally expect accusations of malicious inertia - and indeed the very accusations of clique-ism that are levelled at me.
We can argue about the wisdom of the 'majority claim' and other semantics until we're blue in the face, but that does nothing to address the real issue: a non-negligible amount of MCS nations are unsatisfied with life on Micras, to the point that some are even putting their Micras commitments on the back burner in favour of their own cartographic worlds (Stormark and Gotzborg being two of the more salient cases). While I recognise and appreciate the time end effort taken to properly respond to the letter (particularly from the Craitgod, whose calm and rational demeanour at this moment reflects well on his office) those responses do seem to have an slighly adversarial, defensive ring to them - as if the priority is to defend the status quo first, and frame all subsequent discussions within the auspices of that defence. I don't know if that approach is necessary, or that the walls of the MCS would come tumbling down if a more engaging approach is taken with the letter's signatories with the involvement of the entire membership to find out what we all really want.
That works both ways, of course. If the general membership finds against us then I will accept my fate, crawl back into the dark Shirerithian cave whence I came, and never offend your eyes again. But I think enough people have signed this letter that now is a good time to review its contents before the entire membership, and on matters both within and without the letter. I don't think it would do any harm at all, and it may well do a great deal of good.
And perhaps, for now, this thread is the best place to do it.
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
And yet, though serious responses is exactly what you got a flood of, you still feel it prudent to make this claim repeatedly.Yastreb wrote:I never demanded - or expected - the MCS' immediate capitulation. I was simply bewildered that the letter has not been treated any more seriously than a petition from an individual member.
We can argue whether 25% is non-negligible, though I don't care enough to, but I can tell you that 25% is not an overwhelming majority.Yastreb wrote:a non-negligible amount of MCS nations
Well at least we agree on one thing, but a question, do you have any plans to actually discuss anything that isn't my sarcasm and brusque diplomatic style? I mean, you've got three or four solid responses to your letter whose contents you've yet to actually address in any way. I mean, I know my rudeness is easier to focus on, but even I led with genuine and respectful reviews of the letter.Yastreb wrote:And perhaps, for now, this thread is the best place to do 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
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
What is there to address? I've already said my part. What we need is everybody who has been silent up until now to say their part, along with the official word of the MCS Council. The fact I'm not indulging in the staid ritual of a college debating society by picking apart everybody's points in the meantime does not mean I'm disregarding them. It just means I recognise the unofficial nature (as Crait has noted) of mine and everybody else's viewpoints thus far, and am waiting for a more authoritative voice on the matter.Rook wrote:do you have any plans to actually discuss anything that isn't my sarcasm and brusque diplomatic style? I mean, you've got three or four solid responses to your letter whose contents you've yet to actually address in any way.
25% of your house on fire is not an overwhelming majority, but non-negligible? Really?Rook wrote:We can argue whether 25% is non-negligible, though I don't care enough to, but I can tell you that 25% is not an overwhelming majority.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
I'd personally like to see the comments and opinions of the majority of the signatory nations in regards to the points raised throughout this thread, as well as the preferred input from the remainder of the Council, before turning anything into official discourse. There's already been upset over minorities and majorities, so I'd like to hear from a few more individuals before working on the MCS's official action response. Just enough response to gauge which suggestions and compromises are supported most would be fine, then a Charter amendment can at least begin to be worded for the best outcome for all...Yastreb wrote:What we need is everybody who has been silent up until now to say their part, along with the official word of the MCS Council. The fact I'm not indulging in the staid ritual of a college debating society by picking apart everybody's points in the meantime does not mean I'm disregarding them. It just means I recognise the unofficial nature (as Crait has noted) of mine and everybody else's viewpoints thus far, and am waiting for a more authoritative voice on the matter.
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
The contents of the letter are nothing we care about a great deal. There is just the inactivity thing, I can't really put much effort in Jingdao now that things have become really busy at work (>50 hrs) and I can understand we can't have a huge empire without activity, I would dislike it if we would lose all our land.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Well, unless you somehow manage to fail doing anything at all for three consecutive months, there is no worry of that happening whatsoever...Jezza Rasmus wrote:I would dislike it if we would lose all our land.
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Trueish. I'm pretty happy with how things are working.
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Hah! More like "If 25% of your house doesn't like the HOA, do you call a real estate agent and moving company??"Yastreb wrote:25% of your house on fire is not an overwhelming majority, but non-negligible? Really?
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
More like "If 25% of your neighborhood doesn't like the people running the HOA, you try to get them replaced."
Hâlian, Magic: The Gathering player/baseball and gridiron fan/computer guy/conlinguist and worldbuilder/tabletop and video game fan too
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Right, because majority rules.
As long as the majority is the noisy minority.
At this point I'm really just trolling, as the fact that no one's willing to acknowledge that perhaps they were exaggerating a bit with the whole 'more people want this than don't' claim - and it's getting to be some rediculous justifications (and a big de-railing.) So I'm just going to not comment on this line of foolshness for a bit and leave room for those people who wanted to discuss our responses to the letter.
If they exist.
As long as the majority is the noisy minority.
At this point I'm really just trolling, as the fact that no one's willing to acknowledge that perhaps they were exaggerating a bit with the whole 'more people want this than don't' claim - and it's getting to be some rediculous justifications (and a big de-railing.) So I'm just going to not comment on this line of foolshness for a bit and leave room for those people who wanted to discuss our responses to the letter.
If they exist.
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
In retrospect, the claim shouldn't have been made, if for no other reason than that it was bound to weaken all the subsequent arguments. I'm embarrassed to say that I missed this when the letter was being proof-read.Rook wrote: At this point I'm really just trolling, as the fact that no one's willing to acknowledge that perhaps they were exaggerating a bit with the whole 'more people want this than don't' claim - and it's getting to be some rediculous justifications (and a big de-railing.)
Having said that...there was a very deep concern in some quarters that unless the letter was forcefully stated, then it would just be ignored. It's hard to get the right balance between sounding too threatening and appearing too weak and no solution will please anyone.
And yes, people do exist who want to respond to your responses:
I'm strongly in favour of replacing the three-month rule with a three-month probationary period. Let's give a new nation a reasonable amount of land on the understanding that if a certain level of development hasn't been reached after three months, the land will revert to the MCS.Craitman wrote: The suggestion of a probationary period would be an interesting prospect, however, and could be useful if we were to reduce the monthly age limit slightly.
This approach has several advantages. Firstly, it gives a new nation something to work with. They know where they are located, who their neighbours are can start making educated guesses about terrain, climate etc. In short, it makes it easier to fit that country's cultural development into a wider context. Secondly, it encourages them to do something with the land. At the moment, once a country has finally been mapped, it has little incentive to do more than the minimum unless and until it wishes to expand!
As long as these nations have a comparably small claim. Some of the most interesting and well-developed countries are one-person projects, or effectively so. Several have literally been around for years and represent a level of resilience and determination that many larger nations should envy. Now I would never suggest that a one-person nation should ever become as large as the Shireroths, Stormarks or Alexandrias of our world- or even the Hamlands and Natopias- but I do feel a little more generosity wouldn't go amiss. And no, this isn't me angling for more land for my own project...this is me resenting the way a multi-moron nation is still accorded greater respect than a solo effort. Yes, the MCS is much more accepting than it used to be...but there is still scope for improvement.Honestly, I'm not sure where the misunderstanding of the MCS's approach to one-man nations comes from, but we have been accepting of such projects for quite a few years now with no questions about future growth needing answering before joining the MCS. As such, there are quite a few one-man, or at least one-active-man, nations on the map right this moment. As long as these nations have a comparably small claim, there is nothing other than complete inactivity which would stop them from claiming on Micras.
I can see the need for some sort of standard, but I do have a number of concerns. Firstly, activity is often sporadic, particularly for one-person projects. I tend to be highly active for several months, then quiet for several more; given that I'm still running the same project I brought to this sector back in 2005, I don't think anyone can accuse me of "not sticking with my project" !Again, there is a misunderstanding here. As long as nations are still receiving posts and activity, they will not be completely removed. If nations maintain an average of under one post per day for three months, then a reduction is the most we will require. Nations will only be removed if they have three consecutive months of absolutely nothing whatsoever; no forum posts, no wiki edits, nada. If that's the case, I'm sure there are very few people around here who could deny that such a situation equates to complete inactivity. If we were to change the requirements for reductions, we could potentially reduce it to a maintained average of under 0.5 posts per day average before action is taken. I would recommend against that though, unless desperation prevailed.
Secondly- and more importantly- it encourages people to post crap simple to satisfy the regulations. I've said this before and I'll say it again: a single high-quality piece of fiction, map, coat of arms etc. will often take longer to produce than thirty spam posts. Again, the MCS of today is far better about recognising this than it has been in the past...but we must not become complacent!
I think that would be greatly appreciated...and I would also encourage a litte more generosity. In my view, the one thing Micras lacks is medium size countries. We have several massive continent-spanning empires together with a host of really quite modest countries, some so small they're almost invisible unless you know where to look.This is perhaps an area which could see some growth for future expansion claims. Perhaps an agreement as to particular amounts of increased activity or certain longevity (or combinations therein) could be met for a more "calculatable" approach to whether expansions are deserving or not?
I've never aspired to found a new Gralus or Shireroth, but I haven't entirely lost hope of one-day participating in a new recond-rank nation...even if that requires me to join forces with other solo projects. It's just hard to commit to the extra work required when the outcome is so uncertain.
While I can understand that viewpoint, I feel these fears are overstated. The Shireroth of today isn't the pixel-grabbing monster it once was; our interest lies solely in preserving the cultural heritage associate with certain areas. The recent annexation of Aryasht required a lot of soul-searching and ultimately a complicated multinational land exchange, simply to ensure that cultural work wasn't irretrievably lost.As in-good-faith as this proposal is, coupled with the acceptance of nations earlier than three months, the potential for exploitation of countless annexations of new projects for the enlargement of a sole nation would be too high. For example (as without intending to besmirch the name of anyone involved), with how many citizens Shireroth has who in turn have their own side-project nations, new rules like this could open the door for something akin to the old GC, with most of Micras under one rule.
But my real concern isn't with large nations, but again with forming more medium-size ones. I think we should be encouraging small projects to come together to form larger, more versatile and robust agglomerations that can take this sector forward. As with all things then, what we're really asking for is a more flexible approach to the issue. If an annexation has obviously been arranged simply to grab pixels, then I don't think any outside of the plot would be sorry to see it rejected. But where there is a genuine desire to preserve past work and encourage new growth, then the MCS could be a little more understanding.
With all due respect, that's a very dangerous statement. From a marketing standpoint, a full world is more enticing than an empty one...because it suggests popularity and activity. I certainly wouldn't be rushing to join a world-sim that is mostly free space, just as I wouldn't eat in an empty restaurant.Rook wrote: I'd rather have more green and good nations, than less green and a screen full of derelict crap.
I've seen this argument raised in so many games, world-building sims and RP sites...and space has never been issue on any of them. This idea that activity will "inevitably" resurge is based on little other than hope and wishful thinking; patterns of online activity are changing and this sector isn't exactly broadcasting our presence.While the MCS is slow now, saying 'there's lots of green let people expand past what they probably warrant' is a recipe for having not enough land left when activity inevitably re-surges. Everything goes in waves, and eventually there will be a micronationalist reference in a big budget movie, or a new article about another failed succession project, or some new documentary that will flood the forums with new blood.
The cold, hard fact is that long-established nations are withdrawing from Micras and the MCS, or at least considering doing so. I'd rather deal with that problem- and the lack of medium sized nations- than worrying about a hypothetical lack of space that may occur sometime down the line when this mythical influx of new people takes place.
***
I'd like to finish with a little statement of my own. While the letter was being drafted, I was very concerned to try to ensure that it wouldn't be taken as a personal attack on anybody. I am grateful for the efforts of the MCS team and feel that Micras is worth fighting for. In fact, this letter grew out of a thread I opened in response to my personal dismay at the potential retreat of nations like Alexandria and Stormark from Micras.
Our sector isn't renewing, let alone growing...and we cannot afford to adopt a complacent attitude. Now I'm not advocating change for the sake of change, but we do need to be willing to re-examine our rules and systems to ensure that they are still up to scratch. We also cannot afford to take our existing membership for granted. This letter may be supported by a mere nine out of thirty-five (ten of you include my own) nations, but that "minority" nevertheless represents a large proportion of this sector...including many long-established micronationalists. If their concerns aren't met half way and we lose some of them as a result, then this sector will be weakened and a valuable resource depleted.
We need to find compromise, not bicker!
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