An Open Letter to the MCS
Moderator: Staff
An Open Letter to the MCS
This letter is the result of five months of internal discussion and revision. It has been circulated privately among most, if not all, of the MCS' member nations, undergoing constant revision in order to present a common cause of concern among said members.An Open Letter of Concern to the Micronational Cartography Society
To the Council of the MCS,
We represent the collective voice of the greater majority of the MCS’ member nations and desire, through no ill intent; to express our need for certain changes to be instituted within the organization’s policies, protocols, and operations. It is the common belief that the Council has been approached in the past, mostly by individuals, who have expressed their desire for the MCS to either review or institute these changes, but only for said suggestions to fall on deaf ears or unanimous dismissal. Either passive or intentional, it has been frustrating for many. It is our opinion that this is not conducive to the best practices of the Society, and that changes are necessary in order to provide the optimal service to our community/hobby. It should be noted that we hold the Council and staff of the MCS in the highest regard, and that this decision does not come lightly, but only after long deliberation. In the interests of settling this in an expedient manner, we urge the Council to consider our concerns with an open mind.
Given that the role of the MCS is to facilitate and fulfill the needs of its members, we hope that by presenting a common concern with the impetus of numerous members will signify the seriousness of the matter and the need for the Council to consider these critiques in a way that will be conducive to solving them. It is felt that the growth and progress of the MCS have been hampered by conservatism as of late. Certain rules, as will be detailed shortly, have become antiquated and no longer applicable given the changing environment of the hobby. These rules, many of which were instituted over a decade-and-a-half ago, no longer provide the optimal level of administration required for modern micronationalism.
To begin, we wish to see a convention on the reform of existing MCS policies and regulations. Below we detail some of our most pressing concerns and their possible solutions.
3-Month Rule: Given the present state of the hobby, the 3-month wait period for inducting new states onto the map is no longer a reasonable proposition that will encourage new micronations or their development. The 3-month waiting period should be revised to allow for new nations to immediately take up membership, within the limitations that their membership is probationary for 3 months and that they must keep up a minimal number of posts per month, possibly five or ten, during that period, after which they become tenured and are subject to normal rules.
One-Man Nations: Despite a reputation as vehicles for the egos of their founders, single-citizen micronations are not universally so and some have shown considerable cultural development that makes them worthy of recognition in their own right. We do not feel that their membership in the MCS must necessarily be justified by an intent or ability to attract other citizens, provided they are able to demonstrate a commitment to meaningful cultural development.
Inactivity: We believe a revision of the average one-post-per-day threshold for removal from the map should be considered, as for many nations this represents a level of inactivity unsustainable for extended periods, and indeed a substantial proportion of MCS members fails to meet it on a consistent basis. While a final suitable threshold should be determined through consultation between MCS members and the Council, we suggest ten posts per month as a reasonable figure and a starting point for discussion.
Expansions: The relative strictness of the MCS toward expansion efforts is reflected in the amount of green space on the map, which has shown no signs of substantially decreasing, and we feel that a more generous approach is warranted. The permission for tenured nations to expand ought to be more explicitly based on a combination of activity, length of membership, relative size, and quality. For example, a nation exercising a great deal of activity, being a longtime member, being of relative size to other members, and placing large emphasis on writing a detailed timeline of their expansion, should be given the opportunity to place a larger claim than a nation showing opposite trends.
In the same vein, we believe that the imposition of hard caps on the amount of territory of any micronation, without consideration of its circumstances and the amount of green space on the map at the time of the claim, is not a fair approach to regulating expansion. Individual claims, as ever, should be judged first on their merit; hard caps should not be imposed unless and until the amount of remaining green space is so low as to warrant conservation of land for the use of new members. We further feel that when a long-established nation merges with or is annexed by a larger nation, the latter should automatically receive its entire territory without being subject to reductions; mergers and annexations, once legally completed, are internal matters of the resulting member state, in which it would be detrimental for outside agencies to interfere.
Quality and Realism: The quality of the maps produced by the MCS is of a level that was considered on par with the wider spectrum of graphic imagery produced a decade ago, and the MCS is losing out to other organizations and countries who can produce better, more detailed maps. As the goal of the MCS is to provide a service, when that service is no longer necessary, the organization becomes obsolete. For ease of editing, the claimsmap is an acceptable tool for “common use”. But professional relief, resource, and other “static” maps that can be upgraded to show more detail should supplement this. The Society should allow for the upgrading and increased professionalism of these maps to further the utility of the organization to its members.
Please accept these critiques in the vein they are meant, as impetus for improvement. These are shortcomings that are shared by the community as a whole, and it our sincere hope to rectify them and improve the utility of the MCS through cooperation and teamwork. Together we can be a force of positive change, and we hope that you will consider our concerns seriously, and work with us to make the MCS better than ever.
Current signatories are:
- Shireroth
- Alexandria
- Stormark
- Safiria
- Maraguo
- Natopia
- Gralus
- Brettish Isles
- Free Cities
Batavia and Flanders are both discussing approval of the letter in their respective legislatures. Gotzborg and Jingdao declined signing the letter. Other members have not been contacted due to an inability to contact those countries (as in WikiNations, who proved to be very difficult to contact) or due to limitations of time (e.g. Hamland) or conflict of interest (e.g. Mercury, Craitland).
It is my sincere, personal hope that this letter will be considered with the utmost professionalism and that its criticisms are directed at the flaws of the system, not towards anyone's character.
-
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:39 am
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
In five months you couldn't find time to approach Hamland, and yet you list Maraguo and the Free Cities amongst the signatories. Please.
Edit: To expand on my point, I think it's rubbish that you can claim to speak for the "greater majority" of the community, without approaching every single nation. I don't support your appeal, but you clearly don't give a shit.
Edit: To expand on my point, I think it's rubbish that you can claim to speak for the "greater majority" of the community, without approaching every single nation. I don't support your appeal, but you clearly don't give a shit.
""YJD: Een Recwar is prima zolang Bijaro niet deelneemt."
-
- 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'm not in the position to currently respond to the individual points raised in the above letter, but just so you know that it's not being ignored, I'll be certain to spend time reading through it and shall proceed as appropriate when time permits! As ever, the MCS and I are both open to suggestions to and criticisms of all aspects of the organisation and its modus operandi, and I thank you for taking the time to compile this letter
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
This is a rule I've supported, the amount of micronations that are only active for a week or less that we get on MicroWiki is ridiculous. It may seem a nuisance, but I think you should just stick to your current projects.Orion wrote:3-Month Rule: Given the present state of the hobby, the 3-month wait period for inducting new states onto the map is no longer a reasonable proposition that will encourage new micronations or their development. The 3-month waiting period should be revised to allow for new nations to immediately take up membership, within the limitations that their membership is probationary for 3 months and that they must keep up a minimal number of posts per month, possibly five or ten, during that period, after which they become tenured and are subject to normal rules.
Not sure if you guys have heard of Senya? It's pretty much me doing everything. And we seem to be doing well. We've never experienced any problems with the MCS at all.Orion wrote:One-Man Nations: Despite a reputation as vehicles for the egos of their founders, single-citizen micronations are not universally so and some have shown considerable cultural development that makes them worthy of recognition in their own right. We do not feel that their membership in the MCS must necessarily be justified by an intent or ability to attract other citizens, provided they are able to demonstrate a commitment to meaningful cultural development.
Stick to projects, then you wouldn't get in this state. I appreciate not everyone has the time for this, but I do think that a lot of people here in Micras have a feeling that their nations should be around by divine right. What the fuck has Gralus done for the past two years? Next to nothing, the occasional post to keep the illusion of activity.Orion wrote:Inactivity: We believe a revision of the average one-post-per-day threshold for removal from the map should be considered, as for many nations this represents a level of inactivity unsustainable for extended periods, and indeed a substantial proportion of MCS members fails to meet it on a consistent basis. While a final suitable threshold should be determined through consultation between MCS members and the Council, we suggest ten posts per month as a reasonable figure and a starting point for discussion.
Whilst I agree that newer nations should have the ability to make bigger claims, I think that the older nations (such as Shireroth, Alexandria, Natopia etc) don't need expanding. There should be a cap on the maximum amount of land a nation could claim instead. Also, if you take the inactivity and young nations thing into perspective, you'd soon see all the current empty space on Micras gobbled up to the point where new nations couldn't claim.Orion wrote:Expansions: The relative strictness of the MCS toward expansion efforts is reflected in the amount of green space on the map, which has shown no signs of substantially decreasing, and we feel that a more generous approach is warranted. The permission for tenured nations to expand ought to be more explicitly based on a combination of activity, length of membership, relative size, and quality. For example, a nation exercising a great deal of activity, being a longtime member, being of relative size to other members, and placing large emphasis on writing a detailed timeline of their expansion, should be given the opportunity to place a larger claim than a nation showing opposite trends.
This, I wasn't contacted at all either, stupid thing to put.Duke Sinclair wrote:I think it's rubbish that you can claim to speak for the "greater majority" of the community, without approaching every single nation. I don't support your appeal, but you clearly don't give a shit.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Okay, further to my previous reply, I now have the ability to give direct responses to the points brought-up in this letter.
I would like to also suggest that people do not directly attack this letter for not being contacted, or similar, regarding its creation. Okay, the labelling of the Bastion Union nations plus Alexandria as being a "majority" is incorrect, but the intent and action of this letter could have easily been an individual's doing rather than that of a select group, and that these points have been mooted to public discussion is the primary directive here, regardless of its wording and semantics
Primarily, don't forget that nations populated by "experienced" micronationalists are only required to survive two months before being permitted to claim; this is quite an important point I feel as pretty much every new claim we receive nowadays is from such projects. I would at most be willing to reduce the rule to two months for brand new nations and one month for "experienced" ones. If we allowed nations to claim from birth, effectively, there would be little-to-no merit in having a claim accepted by the MCS. 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.3-Month Rule: Given the present state of the hobby, the 3-month wait period for inducting new states onto the map is no longer a reasonable proposition that will encourage new micronations or their development. The 3-month waiting period should be revised to allow for new nations to immediately take up membership, within the limitations that their membership is probationary for 3 months and that they must keep up a minimal number of posts per month, possibly five or ten, during that period, after which they become tenured and are subject to normal rules.
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.One-Man Nations: Despite a reputation as vehicles for the egos of their founders, single-citizen micronations are not universally so and some have shown considerable cultural development that makes them worthy of recognition in their own right. We do not feel that their membership in the MCS must necessarily be justified by an intent or ability to attract other citizens, provided they are able to demonstrate a commitment to meaningful cultural development.
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.Inactivity: We believe a revision of the average one-post-per-day threshold for removal from the map should be considered, as for many nations this represents a level of inactivity unsustainable for extended periods, and indeed a substantial proportion of MCS members fails to meet it on a consistent basis. While a final suitable threshold should be determined through consultation between MCS members and the Council, we suggest ten posts per month as a reasonable figure and a starting point for discussion.
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?Expansions: The relative strictness of the MCS toward expansion efforts is reflected in the amount of green space on the map, which has shown no signs of substantially decreasing, and we feel that a more generous approach is warranted. The permission for tenured nations to expand ought to be more explicitly based on a combination of activity, length of membership, relative size, and quality. For example, a nation exercising a great deal of activity, being a longtime member, being of relative size to other members, and placing large emphasis on writing a detailed timeline of their expansion, should be given the opportunity to place a larger claim than a nation showing opposite trends.
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.In the same vein, we believe that the imposition of hard caps on the amount of territory of any micronation, without consideration of its circumstances and the amount of green space on the map at the time of the claim, is not a fair approach to regulating expansion. Individual claims, as ever, should be judged first on their merit; hard caps should not be imposed unless and until the amount of remaining green space is so low as to warrant conservation of land for the use of new members. We further feel that when a long-established nation merges with or is annexed by a larger nation, the latter should automatically receive its entire territory without being subject to reductions; mergers and annexations, once legally completed, are internal matters of the resulting member state, in which it would be detrimental for outside agencies to interfere.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. It has long been an aim to have a "proper", or "special" map of Micras which is updated on the same basis as the Paint claimsmap, but previous attempts have fallen at the wayside. As Shyriath is the current Council member with the most vast experience of creating a frankly better map, this may be something that would fall under his skill set as a viable progression for the MCS's cartographic output.Quality and Realism: The quality of the maps produced by the MCS is of a level that was considered on par with the wider spectrum of graphic imagery produced a decade ago, and the MCS is losing out to other organizations and countries who can produce better, more detailed maps. As the goal of the MCS is to provide a service, when that service is no longer necessary, the organization becomes obsolete. For ease of editing, the claimsmap is an acceptable tool for “common use”. But professional relief, resource, and other “static” maps that can be upgraded to show more detail should supplement this. The Society should allow for the upgrading and increased professionalism of these maps to further the utility of the organization to its members.
I would like to also suggest that people do not directly attack this letter for not being contacted, or similar, regarding its creation. Okay, the labelling of the Bastion Union nations plus Alexandria as being a "majority" is incorrect, but the intent and action of this letter could have easily been an individual's doing rather than that of a select group, and that these points have been mooted to public discussion is the primary directive here, regardless of its wording and semantics
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
I have to agree with a number of Craitman's points, but first and foremost I want to disagree that critiquing the 'majority' claim that the letter makes does not make a de-facto attack on the letter as a whole. There's no reason to discount the letter because of that, but it doesn't do much for its credibility.
There is no MCS regulation regarding one man nations, the problem I think is brought up is how one man nations don't necessarily have the same forum activity as other nations do because it's tough to build a rapport with yourself. And for a time when forum activity was the end all and be all for judging activity, yeah that would be a valid complaint. But now the MCS takes into account wiki edits, and literature, and Facebook activity, etc.
Also I have no interest in removing the three month rule. While 'activity is activity' we deal with enough frivolous madness without going back to the dark ages of having a graveyard of 'nations' on the map who are predominantly abandoned 1 week projects. I'd rather have more green and good nations, than less green and a screen full of derelict crap.
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. "In times of peace prepare for war." Was that Eisenhower? Eh, I don't care enough to google it, the thing is, we want to be approachable at all times, and filling up the map with 'good old boys' is not the way to be available to everyone.
The MCS serves ALL its members, not the majority of its members. That's how you get the cliques and monopolies that these very policies were enacted to protect against.
I think the only place you've really got a good point is in regards to the quality of the map. The maps, maps, map thread, as a way for people to explore their own maps either 'zoomed in' ones pertaining to their nations or the ones that seek to improve upon our current one (like the one that just got posted that people called lugubrious.) Perhaps that thread would be a good recruiting ground for people who want to produce official versions of the claims map that look nice. The basic paint one is still useful as the lowest common denominator when it comes to having people with little or no graphic skill submitting claims and should exist for that purpose if nothing else.
There is no MCS regulation regarding one man nations, the problem I think is brought up is how one man nations don't necessarily have the same forum activity as other nations do because it's tough to build a rapport with yourself. And for a time when forum activity was the end all and be all for judging activity, yeah that would be a valid complaint. But now the MCS takes into account wiki edits, and literature, and Facebook activity, etc.
Also I have no interest in removing the three month rule. While 'activity is activity' we deal with enough frivolous madness without going back to the dark ages of having a graveyard of 'nations' on the map who are predominantly abandoned 1 week projects. I'd rather have more green and good nations, than less green and a screen full of derelict crap.
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. "In times of peace prepare for war." Was that Eisenhower? Eh, I don't care enough to google it, the thing is, we want to be approachable at all times, and filling up the map with 'good old boys' is not the way to be available to everyone.
The MCS serves ALL its members, not the majority of its members. That's how you get the cliques and monopolies that these very policies were enacted to protect against.
I think the only place you've really got a good point is in regards to the quality of the map. The maps, maps, map thread, as a way for people to explore their own maps either 'zoomed in' ones pertaining to their nations or the ones that seek to improve upon our current one (like the one that just got posted that people called lugubrious.) Perhaps that thread would be a good recruiting ground for people who want to produce official versions of the claims map that look nice. The basic paint one is still useful as the lowest common denominator when it comes to having people with little or no graphic skill submitting claims and should exist for that purpose if nothing else.
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
So in short, for all the due consideration that has been given, the MCS will do precisely nothing in response to this letter. I find it difficult to comprehend that the united word of so many members (majority or not, this is more than a one-man wibble you must admit) can be dismissed as so illegitimate that it does not even warrant the convention that has been asked for. At least there, everybody missed by this letter can be brought on board and the matter can be settled beyond question.
A GC-style gobbling of existing nations can be avoided simply by taking the "calculations" of cultural justifiability alluded to in your first statement for expansions into the Green, and applying them to annexations.
An eye really does need to be cast by the MCS on provision for the long term, rather than retaining an old ruleset simply because the amount of pain it causes is not deemed sufficient to warrant the effort of reform yet. If the effort behind the dismissals and denials exerted above was instead turned to a more productive re-evaluation of the MCS' direction, surely a settlement could be achieved that puts an end to the need for whole groups of members writing in protest. Dismissing the problem as one of pot-stirring nations who don't know what they're talking about, rather than *gasp* considering the possibility there might be a problem with actual MCS policy is rather short sighted - and will, in time, return to bite all of us.
Craitman wrote: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?
These statements seem almost to contradict each other. An annexation, in many if not most cases, is more culturally justified than a colonisation of the Green from scratch. Surely a more relaxed oversight of expansion into the Green must be accompanied by the same for annexations if it is to make any sense. If anything, annexations make more sense as they provide for expansions without taking space from the Green.Craitman wrote: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.
A GC-style gobbling of existing nations can be avoided simply by taking the "calculations" of cultural justifiability alluded to in your first statement for expansions into the Green, and applying them to annexations.
This may have applied ten, or even five years ago - but the nature of online media has changed enough in that time that our forum/wiki based nature is becoming rapidly obsolete. Ours was a niche hobby to begin with - and there is now no guarantee that, even if we get mass coverage in the newer media, that it will autonamically translate to increased recruitment for us. To use a gaming analogy, it's rather like showing people an idea based around 80s/90s style MUDs to a generation brought up on Garry's Mod etc. This conceptual dissonance is, and shall increasingly become, too fundamental to overcome (unless of course we shift our media to match modern trends, which I don't personally see happening any time soon). We will continue to receive small amounts of determined new members with a taste for the unconventional, but I think the days of the Newbie Tsunami are well and truly over and the MCS needs to adjust for this.Rook wrote: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. "In times of peace prepare for war." Was that Eisenhower? Eh, I don't care enough to google it, the thing is, we want to be approachable at all times, and filling up the map with 'good old boys' is not the way to be available to everyone.
An eye really does need to be cast by the MCS on provision for the long term, rather than retaining an old ruleset simply because the amount of pain it causes is not deemed sufficient to warrant the effort of reform yet. If the effort behind the dismissals and denials exerted above was instead turned to a more productive re-evaluation of the MCS' direction, surely a settlement could be achieved that puts an end to the need for whole groups of members writing in protest. Dismissing the problem as one of pot-stirring nations who don't know what they're talking about, rather than *gasp* considering the possibility there might be a problem with actual MCS policy is rather short sighted - and will, in time, return to bite all of us.
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
I sort of feel that this is partially directed towards me, since I seem to fit the profile you just described. I think that this point is fair and should be taken seriously but I don't follow your conclusion that, because there might be a danger of coöperating states, it should not be easy for members of a nation to create their side project nations. Especially in the case of Shireroth, which is not just a micronation but also increasingly becomes a hub of micronationalists to come together, this reasoning is just not fair. A far better solution would be for the MCS to monitor possible unwanted alliances (of which I currently don't see any examples) and act firmly against that instead of maintaining this precautionary rule that might very well throw away the child with the bathwater and might limit the creativity our declining hobby desperately needs.Craitman wrote: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.
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: An Open Letter to the MCS
That's quite a generalised, incorrect analysis of what's been said. Primarily because of the support I've given to a number of the suggestions (or, at least, compromises offered), but also because I don't speak on behalf of the entirety of the Council and can be overruled as easy as any other member. There has been no outright dismissal of this letter and at no point has the denial of a "convention" been mentioned. If anything, this thread is that convention.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. I find it difficult to comprehend that the united word of so many members (majority or not, this is more than a one-man wibble you must admit) can be dismissed as so illegitimate that it does not even warrant the convention that has been asked for. At least there, everybody missed by this letter can be brought on board and the matter can be settled beyond question.
The second part of that shows why my two statements are complementary rather than contradictory. Annexations are still expansions (whether or not the nation in question expands into unclaimed territory shouldn't affect that), so they would still fall under the remit of an improved, calculated system for "acceptability". I am still against blindly accepting all annexations in full, however, especially if coupled with a simplified means of new nations claiming on Micras in the first place; like I said, the potential for a claim-and-annexation ring is too high.These statements seem almost to contradict each other. An annexation, in many if not most cases, is more culturally justified than a colonisation of the Green from scratch. Surely a more relaxed oversight of expansion into the Green must be accompanied by the same for annexations if it is to make any sense. If anything, annexations make more sense as they provide for expansions without taking space from the Green.
A GC-style gobbling of existing nations can be avoided simply by taking the "calculations" of cultural justifiability alluded to in your first statement for expansions into the Green, and applying them to annexations.
I'm not sure that change necessarily means obsolescence. Forums and wikis are still as prominent and used as ever, but we obviously have to take into consideration social media-based activity and the like. Not replacement, just an increase in options. I do agree with the latter sentence, however. The HTSYOC times are definitely over, and just hoping for another similar wave isn't healthy.This may have applied ten, or even five years ago - but the nature of online media has changed enough in that time that our forum/wiki based nature is becoming rapidly obsolete.
...
but I think the days of the Newbie Tsunami are well and truly over and the MCS needs to adjust for this.
Yeah, you're overdoing the "stubborn dismissal" thing. Nobody has treated this as "pot-stirring", nor remotely alluded that some of the most long-standing members of the community "don't know what they're talking about". This is a vehicle in which to discuss policy changes and compromises, not to just moan about how back-dated the MCS is. There's been plenty of those threads in the past; this one (as it stands) is different and progressive, hence why it is welcome.If the effort behind the dismissals and denials exerted above was instead turned to a more productive re-evaluation of the MCS' direction, surely a settlement could be achieved that puts an end to the need for whole groups of members writing in protest. Dismissing the problem as one of pot-stirring nations who don't know what they're talking about, rather than *gasp* considering the possibility there might be a problem with actual MCS policy is rather short sighted - and will, in time, return to bite all of us.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Oop, double-post. Just thought I'd address each person's queries individually
You may well do, as with a few other members. Don't take what I said as a personal character assassination; it was an example of a nation with a large citizen base who are also involved in other projects. I'm not specifically saying "beware Shireroth, they'll claim everything", just that relaxing the annexation approach could allow for similarly large nations to claim an unjustified mass of landJack wrote:I sort of feel that this is partially directed towards me, since I seem to fit the profile you just described.
That's not what I've said. It shouldn't be hard for people to create side-projects at all - in fact (and I'm surprised it's not something that was mentioned in the letter as a rule to be ditched), I'd be willing to remove the rule that states people can only be in charge of one independent nation on Micras at any one time. Allowing people to have a couple of projects simultaneously could mean less unclaimed land and a greater cultural variety on the map. As long as they remain active (and as I said previously, all that means is literally just posting something once every three months!), I don't think that would be too detrimental, especially if we reduced the age rule to one month as mooted above. But back to the first point, I feel that we shouldn't make it easy for nations to continually expand solely by annexing other nations without it being justified; having a situation where it seems that projects are being founded solely for future annexation by a larger power is not desirous, basically.I think that this point is fair and should be taken seriously but I don't follow your conclusion that, because there might be a danger of coöperating states, it should not be easy for members of a nation to create their side project nations.
Monitoring every nation's foreign policies and allegiances would be overkill and not necessary - that would surely be stifling on development and creativity. My point regarding allowing multiple nations under the same individual's control counteracts your worry here, I believe, and would permit more freedom to new, creative projects being founded more frequently. The more I think, the more I'd like to see this in place, actually, if it means more little nations popping-up all over the map!A far better solution would be for the MCS to monitor possible unwanted alliances (of which I currently don't see any examples) and act firmly against that instead of maintaining this precautionary rule that might very well throw away the child with the bathwater and might limit the creativity our declining hobby desperately needs.
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
It should be pointed out that by majority one can consider that the signatories constitute at least 90% of all claimed territory on Micras. My plan was to get the largest stakeholders on board first and then start circulating it to the smaller countries. I ran out of time, however, due to real-life commitments. As Krasniy pointed out, my personal choice of a favorable outcome to this would be to hold a "regulatory convention" whereby all members are involved in the process of drafting a set of reforms. Duke Sinclair seems to view this as exclusionary; if that was the case then this would not be an open letter.
I'm on my way out the door right now but intend to respond to this in more depth later this evening.
I'm on my way out the door right now but intend to respond to this in more depth later this evening.
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
For me, it seems that Micras is an oligopoly, with the interests of the smaller or newer nations in the community ignored at the expense of the older, more established ones. Now, whilst I recognise that the likes of the Bastion nations etc and their citizens will inevitably have greater experience in the community, they should use it to benefit Micras as a whole, rather than their own nations, which I feel that this whole open letter is. We had something like this back on MicroWiki in 2011, and by the end of 2012 the MicroWiki community had effectively died, with newer members splitting off to join other communities whilst the more established of us held a much smaller online presence and instead we shifted to being a gentleman's club split between facebook and skype.Orion wrote:My plan was to get the largest stakeholders on board first and then start circulating it to the smaller countries
-
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:39 am
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
The proposals may warrant legitimate discussion, but the pretense upon which they were proposed is misleading.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. I find it difficult to comprehend that the united word of so many members (majority or not, this is more than a one-man wibble you must admit) can be dismissed as so illegitimate that it does not even warrant the convention that has been asked for. At least there, everybody missed by this letter can be brought on board and the matter can be settled beyond question.
The Free Cities and Maraguo are not among the largest shareholders, nor is the Brettish Isles. I just don't understand why, if it was really a true majority opinion that you wanted, you wouldn't start by posting the draft in a more public place, rather than wait five months to do it. Or, why you found it necessary to prioritize certain nations over others, rather than including a true majority of nations from the very outset. It seems to me that you really used the time very poorly, and in doing so, you hurt your cause. I'd also like to point out that your actual wording was "greater majority." That implies, to me at least, that you gathered the opinions which you viewed as being more important, and then "due to time," you were unable to acquire the opinions of the "smaller" countries. It reeks of elitism, and you shouldn't be surprised that people would feel alienated.Orion wrote:It should be pointed out that by majority one can consider that the signatories constitute at least 90% of all claimed territory on Micras. My plan was to get the largest stakeholders on board first and then start circulating it to the smaller countries. I ran out of time, however, due to real-life commitments. As Krasniy pointed out, my personal choice of a favorable outcome to this would be to hold a "regulatory convention" whereby all members are involved in the process of drafting a set of reforms. Duke Sinclair seems to view this as exclusionary; if that was the case then this would not be an open letter.
I'm on my way out the door right now but intend to respond to this in more depth later this evening.
Last edited by NewZimiaGov on Sat Jun 14, 2014 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
""YJD: Een Recwar is prima zolang Bijaro niet deelneemt."
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
There is of course an easy explanation for that namely the fact that citizens in the nations you named, myself among them, also have citizenship in Shireroth which made those nations more connected to the proces of writing this letter.
Of course it would have been great if we also had Hamland on board or several other nations but I think that Orion's answer to that is quite sufficient, we could have a convention to talk about MCS changes. The first and foremost reason this letter was sent was to indicate certain problems we had with the current charter and to suggest ways to synchronize the organisation more with the present time. I for one am interested in what you have to add to that, Duke, so I hope that you could actually regard this letter objectively.
Of course it would have been great if we also had Hamland on board or several other nations but I think that Orion's answer to that is quite sufficient, we could have a convention to talk about MCS changes. The first and foremost reason this letter was sent was to indicate certain problems we had with the current charter and to suggest ways to synchronize the organisation more with the present time. I for one am interested in what you have to add to that, Duke, so I hope that you could actually regard this letter objectively.
Porque las estirpes condenadas a cien años de soledad no tenían una segunda oportunidad sobre la tierra.
-
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:39 am
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
In general, I feel that the only way to implement a meaningful probationary period would be to require a higher minimum standard for new nations. Assuming that new members will generally have as much free time as your or I, I worry that imposing a higher minimum standard on new members would serve as too much of a deterrence. As it stands, I support the 3 month waiting period for brand members, and two month period for existing members. Perhaps as an alternative we could allow new members to reduce their waiting period by one month, by gaining the support of existing members. This would help to integrate new members, thus fostering a sense of community, thereby ensuring their increased likelihood of sticking around.3-Month Rule: Given the present state of the hobby, the 3-month wait period for inducting new states onto the map is no longer a reasonable proposition that will encourage new micronations or their development. The 3-month waiting period should be revised to allow for new nations to immediately take up membership, within the limitations that their membership is probationary for 3 months and that they must keep up a minimal number of posts per month, possibly five or ten, during that period, after which they become tenured and are subject to normal rules.
As others have said, there really aren't any restrictions against one-man nations. If there were a lot of one-man nations being denied potential claims then I would agree that this reform should be implemented, but since that is not happening, I can't help but feel that this proposal is a bit frivolous.One-Man Nations: Despite a reputation as vehicles for the egos of their founders, single-citizen micronations are not universally so and some have shown considerable cultural development that makes them worthy of recognition in their own right. We do not feel that their membership in the MCS must necessarily be justified by an intent or ability to attract other citizens, provided they are able to demonstrate a commitment to meaningful cultural development.
We have to be careful to remember that a reduction in standards = reduction in expectations. By reducing the minimum standard for existing members, we reduce accountability, which is already fairly low. If we were to reduce them further, I can't help but imagine that we would soon see nations becoming more inactive, and more nations would be removed at an increasing rate.Inactivity: We believe a revision of the average one-post-per-day threshold for removal from the map should be considered, as for many nations this represents a level of inactivity unsustainable for extended periods, and indeed a substantial proportion of MCS members fails to meet it on a consistent basis. While a final suitable threshold should be determined through consultation between MCS members and the Council, we suggest ten posts per month as a reasonable figure and a starting point for discussion.
I actually do mostly agree with this, although I also feel that it naturally benefits the larger communities over the smaller ones, simply by virtue of the fact that larger nations are able to enjoy a higher creative output. Currently all active nations are on relatively equal footing when it comes to potential expansion, and this reform might disrupt that equality.Expansions: The relative strictness of the MCS toward expansion efforts is reflected in the amount of green space on the map, which has shown no signs of substantially decreasing, and we feel that a more generous approach is warranted. The permission for tenured nations to expand ought to be more explicitly based on a combination of activity, length of membership, relative size, and quality. For example, a nation exercising a great deal of activity, being a longtime member, being of relative size to other members, and placing large emphasis on writing a detailed timeline of their expansion, should be given the opportunity to place a larger claim than a nation showing opposite trends.
In the same vein, we believe that the imposition of hard caps on the amount of territory of any micronation, without consideration of its circumstances and the amount of green space on the map at the time of the claim, is not a fair approach to regulating expansion. Individual claims, as ever, should be judged first on their merit; hard caps should not be imposed unless and until the amount of remaining green space is so low as to warrant conservation of land for the use of new members. We further feel that when a long-established nation merges with or is annexed by a larger nation, the latter should automatically receive its entire territory without being subject to reductions; mergers and annexations, once legally completed, are internal matters of the resulting member state, in which it would be detrimental for outside agencies to interfere..
The Society does allow members to produce higher quality maps. Perhaps there could be protocol for increasing the number of official maps, whether it be a form of poll held within the community, or a decision left to the Council. I think it would really benefit the community if we created additional Special Cartographer posts within the Council.Quality and Realism: The quality of the maps produced by the MCS is of a level that was considered on par with the wider spectrum of graphic imagery produced a decade ago, and the MCS is losing out to other organizations and countries who can produce better, more detailed maps. As the goal of the MCS is to provide a service, when that service is no longer necessary, the organization becomes obsolete. For ease of editing, the claimsmap is an acceptable tool for “common use”. But professional relief, resource, and other “static” maps that can be upgraded to show more detail should supplement this. The Society should allow for the upgrading and increased professionalism of these maps to further the utility of the organization to its members.
""YJD: Een Recwar is prima zolang Bijaro niet deelneemt."