An Open Letter to the MCS
Moderator: Staff
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21546
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Thank you, High Priestess!
So far, I'm thinking:
So far, I'm thinking:
4. Operation of the Council
...
(4) A Council Member should, when voting on a claim request, consider whether the overall development of the nation in question merits the addition of the area being claimed, taking into particular account:
(a) activity,
(b) cultural development,
(c) internal government,
(d) international collaboration,
(f) history and
(g) use of current claims.
9. Qualification
(1) A state may, at the discretion of the Council, become a member of the Society if they can prove to the satisfaction of the Council that they: (a) are independent of every other member, and (b) have established a documented online existence for a period exceeding 30 days prior to their initial application.
(2) States which do not meet the criteria in subsection (1)(b) may reserve land at the Council's discretion until they reach the age stated in the aforementioned criteria.
Apart than the above, other subjects which have been discussed don't strictly need Charter amendments (such as a greater leniency towards expansions, more "special" maps, etc)17. Removal of claims
(1) Where, in respect of the forums of a member, a period of three months elapses in which an average of less than one post per two days is made, the Council shall have the power to reduce the area of the claim of that member.
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Not sure about point d of that Operation of the Council article. I think diplomacy and foreign contacts are overrated in this day and age, not much ever comes from it and new nations should not be judged by it.
Porque las estirpes condenadas a cien años de soledad no tenían una segunda oportunidad sobre la tierra.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21546
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
It was one of the "sections" mentioned in the most recent discussions in this thread, so I included it. With the current Charter, the closest thing listed is military development, which is even less relevant nowadaysJack wrote:Not sure about point d of that Operation of the Council article. I think diplomacy and foreign contacts are overrated in this day and age, not much ever comes from it and new nations should not be judged by it.
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
You could use a broader category to include military, foreign relations, etc., since some people focus on one of those aspects of development. All I can think of is "Military-Industrial Complex", but there's a better term not coming to me at the moment.
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
I'd throw in participation in international sport as part of the foreign interaction. There are a few places whose diplomatic activity is is minimal but whose sports activity is considerably more developed.
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Crait, I very much like your list.
Would not this be included under a combination of internal government and international collaboration?Orion wrote:You could use a broader category to include military, foreign relations, etc., since some people focus on one of those aspects of development. All I can think of is "Military-Industrial Complex", but there's a better term not coming to me at the moment.
To me this would seem to be very decisively international collaboration. The sports leagues are probably some of the better, more long-lasting alliance-like things this hobby has when it all comes down to it.Yastreb wrote:I'd throw in participation in international sport as part of the foreign interaction. There are a few places whose diplomatic activity is is minimal but whose sports activity is considerably more developed.
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Aye, I thought of that, but it says internal, whereas international collaboration would suggest external. I was thinking internal government only referred to stuff like legislative assembly, governors, courts, etc.SaiKar wrote:Would not this be included under a combination of internal government and international collaboration?Orion wrote:You could use a broader category to include military, foreign relations, etc., since some people focus on one of those aspects of development. All I can think of is "Military-Industrial Complex", but there's a better term not coming to me at the moment.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21546
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
As far as I see them, they're the most vague ways to describe pretty much everything we do in our nations. Things may well fall into two categories (dependent on personal opinions), but nothing should be outside of the descriptions above - if there is anything which can't be classed as one of those six things, that's something to mull over
-
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:15 pm
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
A High Priestess wishes to convey that you are very welcome!Craitman wrote:Thank you, High Priestess!
Sigrdrífa the Priestess of the House of Vanadís
Ærkejarla of Thingeyri and the Idunn Isles
Yfirstormarksgythia and High Priestess of the Thingeyri Temple
Ærkejarla of Thingeyri and the Idunn Isles
Yfirstormarksgythia and High Priestess of the Thingeyri Temple
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21546
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Just remembered, should we add a subsection that specifies multiple nations are permitted? Or does failing to mention in the Charter that they're not allowed permit them by default anyway?
-
- Administrator General
- Posts: 4328
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:58 pm
- Location: Republic of Mercury
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
I think just put everything down and we can vote on each separately.
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
I think the whole "unspoken rules" thing has been a sore issue for a while; thus committing it to paper would be a step in the right direction.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21546
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Fair enough. Something like this?
10. Restrictions
...
(2) Permitted that the Council is satisfied that a nation meets the criteria described in section 9.(1), there are no further restrictions on a right to claim for:
(a) one-man nations, or
(b) multiple states simultaneously run by one person.
-
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:15 pm
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
A High Priestess wishes to convey that in her most humple opinion the proposal above by the MCS Administrator-General is fine.Craitman wrote:Fair enough. Something like this?
10. Restrictions
...
(2) Permitted that the Council is satisfied that a nation meets the criteria described in section 9.(1), there are no further restrictions on a right to claim for:
(a) one-man nations, or
(b) multiple states simultaneously run by one person.
Sigrdrífa the Priestess of the House of Vanadís
Ærkejarla of Thingeyri and the Idunn Isles
Yfirstormarksgythia and High Priestess of the Thingeyri Temple
Ærkejarla of Thingeyri and the Idunn Isles
Yfirstormarksgythia and High Priestess of the Thingeyri Temple
-
- Administrator General
- Posts: 4328
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:58 pm
- Location: Republic of Mercury
Re: An Open Letter to the MCS
Should there be a maximum number of nations that one person can be in charge of? Also will there be any restrictions against annexing your own nations?