An Open Letter to the MCS
Moderator: Staff
-
- Administrator General
- Posts: 4333
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:58 pm
- Location: Republic of Mercury
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Gralus had two posts per day in the last forum check, while Craitland do a lot of stuff on Micras Wiki which doesn't show on the forum check. Same with Gerenia, who've only had one post in the last three months, because most of their stuff is done on the wiki.
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
In my post I specifically had stated that the time Gralus was under 1 PPD was February to September of last year. Well over the red line of three months. At the time the policy was in place as well.
If Craitland's contributions to MicrasWiki are being taken into account, I feel that may be unfair... are you then counting all the work Gotzborg did for their amazing website? Or counting the work Stormark has done for their wiki? Or what counts then? Only MicroWiki? Not trying to be snarky or anything, I just want to get the details on my end straight, if I'm wrong, then I'll stand corrected.
If Craitland's contributions to MicrasWiki are being taken into account, I feel that may be unfair... are you then counting all the work Gotzborg did for their amazing website? Or counting the work Stormark has done for their wiki? Or what counts then? Only MicroWiki? Not trying to be snarky or anything, I just want to get the details on my end straight, if I'm wrong, then I'll stand corrected.
EDGARD
Central Committee of Edgards
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Currently involved in: New Alexandria, Natopia, Ransenar, Constancia
JOIN THE NOUVELLE ALEXANDRIE DISCORD SERVER!
Central Committee of Edgards
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Currently involved in: New Alexandria, Natopia, Ransenar, Constancia
JOIN THE NOUVELLE ALEXANDRIE DISCORD SERVER!
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
This assumes all nations have forums. Whilst I agree this should be expanded, this is allowing a nation to claim without having a forum. With Senya, most of the stuff is either me or IRL meetings, so a forum would be useless.Edgard wrote:If Craitland's contributions to MicrasWiki are being taken into account, I feel that may be unfair... are you then counting all the work Gotzborg did for their amazing website? Or counting the work Stormark has done for their wiki? Or what counts then? Only MicroWiki? Not trying to be snarky or anything, I just want to get the details on my end straight, if I'm wrong, then I'll stand corrected.
Good to see Senya's involvement in Micras has been taken notice ofOrion wrote:I was subtly referring to many of the MicroWiki people, who claim land but don't interact much here.
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Senya could still use a forum, though, to showcase cultural development.
Hâlian, Magic: The Gathering player/baseball and gridiron fan/computer guy/conlinguist and worldbuilder/tabletop and video game fan too
-
- Administrator General
- Posts: 4333
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:58 pm
- Location: Republic of Mercury
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
If Gralus' inactivity was then, then I don't know what happened, as I wasn't a full Council member during that time, so I'll wait for someone else to respond to that one.Edgard wrote:In my post I specifically had stated that the time Gralus was under 1 PPD was February to September of last year. Well over the red line of three months. At the time the policy was in place as well.
If Craitland's contributions to MicrasWiki are being taken into account, I feel that may be unfair... are you then counting all the work Gotzborg did for their amazing website? Or counting the work Stormark has done for their wiki? Or what counts then? Only MicroWiki? Not trying to be snarky or anything, I just want to get the details on my end straight, if I'm wrong, then I'll stand corrected.
MicroWiki contributions are also counted, and Gotzborg and Stormark's forums have enough activity as it is, so we don't currently need to look elsewhere for activity, but if their forum did have a lull, then the wiki/website would be taken into account.
-
- 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 my laptop decided to stop working last night, I can only respond to the latest parts of this thread with a short post as I'm borrowing a computer at the moment:
In regards to Gralus, they have experienced a considerably large reduction due to being under the 1 PPD requirement already (probably losing around the same amount of land that Alexandria did for theirs), and so there has not been a need to reduce them further, nor remove them entirely.
Joe was mistaken in regards to Alexandria's reduction, perhaps either through forgetfulness or lack of knowledge of the situation, but yes, it definitely wasn't voluntary.
Joe is, however, correct about my regard for MicrasWiki when considering a reduction for Craitland. Alongside forum activity, website and wiki activity is also taken into account when judging reductions and removals. Whether it be MicrasWiki, MicroWiki, national wiki projects, or updated news websites, they are looked at as well as forums. To associate that with the nations you mentioned, Gotzborg's website and Stormark's wiki would indeed both be checked if their respective forum activity dropped below the 1 PPD level for a sustained period. For example, Uantir remained on the map a while ago despite three months' 0 PPD because of their MicrasWiki work!
In regards to Gralus, they have experienced a considerably large reduction due to being under the 1 PPD requirement already (probably losing around the same amount of land that Alexandria did for theirs), and so there has not been a need to reduce them further, nor remove them entirely.
Joe was mistaken in regards to Alexandria's reduction, perhaps either through forgetfulness or lack of knowledge of the situation, but yes, it definitely wasn't voluntary.
Joe is, however, correct about my regard for MicrasWiki when considering a reduction for Craitland. Alongside forum activity, website and wiki activity is also taken into account when judging reductions and removals. Whether it be MicrasWiki, MicroWiki, national wiki projects, or updated news websites, they are looked at as well as forums. To associate that with the nations you mentioned, Gotzborg's website and Stormark's wiki would indeed both be checked if their respective forum activity dropped below the 1 PPD level for a sustained period. For example, Uantir remained on the map a while ago despite three months' 0 PPD because of their MicrasWiki work!
I find the final part of that laughable, if I'm honest. Like Joe said, your activity's back up now; if you want to see if an expansion would be successful, you should submit it instead of implying the MCS is biased towards you, which is entirely not the case and is downright insulting...Edgard wrote:And I would be willing to bet money that if we wanted to place a claim to regain some of our territory back, it would get shutdown because we're Alexandria.
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
I'm really, really sorry if that's how things came across, I certainly did not mean that. I should have been more specific in that statement so that it would not leave things up to interpretation. What I meant to say that with the MCS' reluctance (and the general public's) to grant larger members in the map expansions, I didn't think we'd be granted a claim based on that policy. That's what I implied with that, and absolutely nothing else.I find the final part of that laughable, if I'm honest. Like Joe said, your activity's back up now; if you want to see if an expansion would be successful, you should submit it instead of implying the MCS is biased towards you, which is entirely not the case and is downright insulting...
If anything this discussion has really enlightened me as to how growth is determined and measured here, and that's not a bad thing. Yes, I meant to be inquisitive and thorough, and I stated previously that if I am wrong on something, then I will humbly stand corrected.
EDGARD
Central Committee of Edgards
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Currently involved in: New Alexandria, Natopia, Ransenar, Constancia
JOIN THE NOUVELLE ALEXANDRIE DISCORD SERVER!
Central Committee of Edgards
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Currently involved in: New Alexandria, Natopia, Ransenar, Constancia
JOIN THE NOUVELLE ALEXANDRIE DISCORD SERVER!
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Thanks for clearing that misunderstanding up
There's no problem in being inquisitive; it seems that there are quite a few points here that have been misinterpreted, so creating a more general understanding is always a welcomed outcome!
There's no problem in being inquisitive; it seems that there are quite a few points here that have been misinterpreted, so creating a more general understanding is always a welcomed outcome!
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
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. But it's not a clear equation. You don't have a formula to rule out any bias - whether that bias is conscious or not. If Q = 40 then L = 40 doesn't exist, so it becomes a subjective interpretation. This qualitative assessment is something I created myself way back in the early days as a process by which to allocate land; since prior to that there wasn't any system (and I hate math )! But in retrospect, I feel that the process is biased simply by the nature of it, not by the people who use it (meaning the Council). Good science teaches us that math doesn't lie. If you use a mathematical equation to determine the result of A + B = C, then C will be consistent. There's no room for error or bias in that.
I've suggested this in the past, but I will suggest it again, in that perhaps it's time to reassess how land is allocated and adopt a mathematical approach. Perhaps a rating system whereby different factors are assessed? 1-10 on ten factors, allowing a total score of 100. Then assign a specific quantity of land to each point. The rating itself is qualitative, but the system is quantitative. It may not be perfect, but it would be a step in the right direction. Of course, math is not my forte, so someone more skilled *prods Andreas* may have a better mathematical approach to suggest.
I've suggested this in the past, but I will suggest it again, in that perhaps it's time to reassess how land is allocated and adopt a mathematical approach. Perhaps a rating system whereby different factors are assessed? 1-10 on ten factors, allowing a total score of 100. Then assign a specific quantity of land to each point. The rating itself is qualitative, but the system is quantitative. It may not be perfect, but it would be a step in the right direction. Of course, math is not my forte, so someone more skilled *prods Andreas* may have a better mathematical approach to suggest.
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Well, maybe not ten factors specifically. You want to have enough factors to provide a good range of measures to consider, but not so many that rating everything feels like a burden... especially considering that you'd be coming up with those factors for each MCS member nation. And, presumably, updating them afterwards.
And that would bring up the issue of how the scores in each factor are determined. I could see the Council acting as a sort of panel of judges in that sense, perhaps; at some interval, say once a year, each Council member could rate each nation by its various scores, and then the scores could be averaged out... something like that. But no doubt there are other approaches, and one would have to be found that balances fairness and feasibility.
And that would bring up the issue of how the scores in each factor are determined. I could see the Council acting as a sort of panel of judges in that sense, perhaps; at some interval, say once a year, each Council member could rate each nation by its various scores, and then the scores could be averaged out... something like that. But no doubt there are other approaches, and one would have to be found that balances fairness and feasibility.
By the hand of
Shyriath Bukolos, aka Shyriath Farstrider, Harbinger of Cheese
He who has been
Shyriath Bukolos, aka Shyriath Farstrider, Harbinger of Cheese
He who has been
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
I think a more defined approach might be helpful; but I also think there's value to a degree of fuzziness. We don't want people to feel "Ooh, I'm entitled to 128 more pixels according to the formula, I should claim them even though I have no real interest or need in further land." But some sort of basic rating system (say 1-5, on four or five criteria) updated at 6 or 12 month intervals, and a rough carry over of that into land size - that might well be worthwhile.
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
And why not? I support a rating system and some sort of benchmark for size based on it vehemently. Right now the question a nation has to ask themselves is “does the quality of my nation appeal to the council as justified?” It’s very subjective, which makes it personal and uncertain. If you’re pushing for an expansion it’s because either you want land arbitrarily or you think you deserve it and it can be very contentious to tell someone that yes, they may think they’re worthy but I don’t because of xyz. It can appear biased, whereas a point system would give someone a better idea of if requesting an expansion is even worth their time – and make it less personal. Sure there’s some fuzziness, because the council decides your point value, but then again with a council you could make someone’s final score the aggregate of everyone’s decisions so that the score reflect the council’s average opinions.Andreas the Wise wrote:We don't want people to feel "Ooh, I'm entitled to 128 more pixels according to the formula, I should claim them even though I have no real interest or need in further land."
If a nation has done enough to warrant a clearly defined expansion of pixels, then there’s no reason to begrudge them asking for what they deserve. It’s not like we’re taking pixels from your pocket to give to them – this is a community resource project. The map is just a pixelated representation of the stories and games the entire commnity is playing, what's wrong with the size of someone's nation expanding or contracting in 'real time' based on their activity and merit and not just their willingness to badger the council with requests. And unlike the current system, there’s no chance at playing favorites or seeming to do so. There’s plenty of reason to NOT fill up your allotted space as much as there is to fill it up. If you have any plans to annex, or want your growth to be a bit more organic, you could give yourself ‘buffer space’ to grow into. Otherwise, if you want to annex someone and you’re at your limit, you know exactly how much to give up. No more ‘well they are active enough to get about half of what they’re asking to annex so that much is what they should give up somewhere else…’ blah blah.
I’ve thought about something like this before, but never brought it up because I honestly didn’t think people would like the idea. I suspected it would come off as somewhat constraining and rigid, but I like the reliability of something quantitative. I also endorse making the point system being out of 100, because then it’s a percentage. We can define the largest we ever really want to see someone become (an analogue to Russia or Canada in sheer geographical expanse maybe) and then your score could correlate directly to what percentage of that ‘ideal’ you can claim. So if the ‘cap’ is 100 pixels (for easy math) and you rate a score from the council of 47, then you can have up to 47 pixels. This would also avoid having a ‘step ladder’ effect on nation sizes over time, where you have very distinctly ‘small, medium, large’ size nations because all nations with a score of 0-33 get x pixels, 34-66 get y pixels, and 67-100 get z pixels. There would still be a lot of individuality among sizes.
While the initial upkeep cost in time would be fairly large, the day to day maintenance of that system would be fairly easy. Say you want to do bi-yearly rating reviews, do it based off of the anniversary of their initial claim and initial rating. That way the council would have a few nations this month, a few next month, etc. to evaluate at any one time – instead of judging the entire map every six months. Then we just update them on the list and if their score went up or down, send them a PM or a post on their forum or something. If we don’t hear back from someone who needs a reduction, forced reductions will be easier on us as we know exactly how much to shave off, instead of having to cut out a subjective amount AND decide from where.
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
-
- Administrator General
- Posts: 4333
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:58 pm
- Location: Republic of Mercury
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
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?
I really hate the idea of a formula due to the fact that some of the things that are taken into account can't really have a number attached to them without being massively subjective, so I don't see how it would be an improvement.
I really hate the idea of a formula due to the fact that some of the things that are taken into account can't really have a number attached to them without being massively subjective, so I don't see how it would be an improvement.
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
How is that a waste of time? If, by the formula, they're eligible for 14 more pixels it's not the council's place to vote yes or no: they already voted by assigning them a score. It's just a matter of notifying the cartographer of the day and making sure it's included in the next update. It's not any work at all really, since updates come fairly regularly anyway, so no one's going out of their way to fix your 14 pixel oversight.
Here's the hard truth - those unassignable characteristics are already being evaluated subjectively. But instead of being graded on a scale of 'needs a lot of work' to 'nailed it!' you're just getting a pass fail. Right now it's a yes/no proposition. Does that particular thing have enough merit to convince the council to allow you to receive the amount of land you requested? Yes? No? I like the idea of giving people something for their work, instead of saying 'yeah that's good enough' or 'no' and shutting them down entirely.
Here's the hard truth - those unassignable characteristics are already being evaluated subjectively. But instead of being graded on a scale of 'needs a lot of work' to 'nailed it!' you're just getting a pass fail. Right now it's a yes/no proposition. Does that particular thing have enough merit to convince the council to allow you to receive the amount of land you requested? Yes? No? I like the idea of giving people something for their work, instead of saying 'yeah that's good enough' or 'no' and shutting them down entirely.
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
- pawelabrams
- Posts: 3207
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:14 pm
- Location: Novograd, Interland
- Contact:
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
I really oppose such systems if it comes to community projects and not something that needs rigid control procedures. You may now insert some reasoning here about how it's killing the fun or how it is biased, but the bias is moved to the one choosing criteria.
The system that I might propose is a system for assessing expansion ability of one nation, with levels below zero, but without limits in expansions and with a threshold for reductions (they don't happen unless the sum of monthly level checks equals 100 for example)...
The system that I might propose is a system for assessing expansion ability of one nation, with levels below zero, but without limits in expansions and with a threshold for reductions (they don't happen unless the sum of monthly level checks equals 100 for example)...
Pavel' Abramovic:, the President of Interland
IRL just a random guy from Poland. Still learning English.
IRL just a random guy from Poland. Still learning English.