Hub.mn

Or you get people just dropping in for confirmations. Alternatively, some 14-year-old starts crying because he was "just away over the weekend" and "had no internet" so he couldn't enter the third confirmation. You get people to participate here by making here interesting, not by forcing them through unnecessary hoops.

Orion wrote:What's the point of sharing a map if you never interact with your neighbors?

Well, the primary reason a nation claims on Micras is for their own internal development, surely? The fact that another nation also does the same thing doesn't mean you should need to have any interaction with them whatsoever if you choose not to. If nations are going to interact, it'll be due to their own initiative, not because we told them to post a couple of things saying "yep, we're still alive" - plenty of Earth countries ignore each other despite doing their own thing, Micras isn't that much different

Now, I'm all for having a close-knit community, but I can't see that being created by requiring new nations (which, nowadays, are pretty much filled by individuals already involved here) to post just four things here over the course of three months. We have plenty of people who visit numerous forums regularly who can't even be contacted directly when something major's happening (as seen in this thread), so why would this approach change that situation for lesser occurrences?

If I want internal development I can make my own map. Stormark has already taken this step. There is a difference between ordering and encouraging, which is the point I think you're missing. I participate with Micras because I enjoy interacting with the colorful array of nations that populate it. If I wanted to focus solely on internal development I'd simply create my own conworld project and keep it to myself; perhaps sharing through a blog or website.

Craitman wrote:Now, I'm all for having a close-knit community, but I can't see that being created by requiring new nations (which, nowadays, are pretty much filled by individuals already involved here) to post just four things here over the course of three months.

I was subtly referring to many of the MicroWiki people, who claim land but don't interact much here.

Craitman wrote:We have plenty of people who visit numerous forums regularly who can't even be contacted directly when something major's happening (as seen in this thread), so why would this approach change that situation for lesser occurrences?

You're correct: It may not change anything. But I'm suggesting possibilities, and that is, after all, the point of this discussion.

Orion wrote:I was subtly referring to many of the MicroWiki people, who claim land but don't interact much here.

*cough*Other than hosting the World Cup*cough*

Not bitter or anything

Orion wrote:If I want internal development I can make my own map. Stormark has already taken this step. There is a difference between ordering and encouraging, which is the point I think you're missing. I participate with Micras because I enjoy interacting with the colorful array of nations that populate it. If I wanted to focus solely on internal development I'd simply create my own conworld project and keep it to myself; perhaps sharing through a blog or website.

Well, I had my own map of Craitland before we joined here, and I think a few other nations have been in the same boat. The draw of claiming on Micras for me was to be part of a greater map, which I think is still why people like to have their nation claim land, but that doesn't necessarily mean there was a desire to directly interact with the other nations. Sometimes it's just nice to be able to put your nation into a certain context rather than just being on your own map.

You're correct: It may not change anything. But I'm suggesting possibilities, and that is, after all, the point of this discussion.

Of course. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying that we shouldn't find a way to increase involvement between nations here, I just don't think we should do it via the claims process. Like Malliki said, there needs to be interest to make people interact, which is what we need to push for rather than making the claims process more fiddly

Recwar or economic reasons (e.g. rescource map) are two very effective tools to this extend, sadly both are not used at the moment and all suggested revivals have failed.

The only thing that really makes this map interesting is international diplomacy and more widespread recognition. People want to see their nation on this map, especially young nations, to become better known on the international stage. Perhaps a strong nation like Stormark doesn't need this but many nations do, otherwise nobody would know about your nation.

Other than their justified and amicably-discussed reduction, what else happened with Alexandria?

Yes, justified and amicably discussed indeed. Our beef has never been with the organization and when we signed onto the letter, we decided to do so because it was not a finger pointing angry rant, but a list of suggestions to consider. However, I do have to make a point - many of the requirements that are being discussed, such as expansions, are being tied to cultural development and rightfully so. However, now we find ourselves in Alexandria with the very awkward situation of having citizens that have done the cultural and political work to develop their provinces and territories finding that their province or territory of residence just disappeared. Or even worse, new citizens coming in and asking where their intended province of residence is on the map and telling them that, well, it's not there anymore. I'm sure many people will fail to see how we feel on this instance as the knives have been out on this thread towards bigger nations (not that I think it's unexcused necessarily, but we are all stakeholders here and all the small nations have the same capability as Alexandria did to grow and prosper), but I feel this is where the meaningful development part stops being consistent across the board in the MCS policies. A lot of the discussion seems to me circled around the notion of what's fair, and I think fairness comes hand in hand with consistency in the application of a policy in an organization.

Lots of effort has gone into the creation and development of Alexandria as it was pre-reduction (we were perfectly content with the territory we had and indeed had made an internal policy not to file any more claims, as in ever again, I can definitely understand how many feel that the bigger nations have grown too big as Alexandria was once small and felt the same about some nations then). We have been around for 12 years and the vast majority of the constituent provinces and territories that were part of Alexandria actually requested to join our Empire voluntarily (Rio Grande, San Martin, Ibelin, Valencia, Leon-Venezia, Luthoria, Galatia). I think it's fair that a nation that has been around for twelve years and has the cultural and historical "gravitas", so to speak, behind it can be bigger than some more younger nations. There's significant cultural and historical development behind that. That will and continues to be the main driving force for Alexandria to seek its own official cartographic representation in the future. I think activity for everyone ebbs and flows, sometimes plunging deeply and other times surging high, and policies to take that into account make sense. But you can't take nations to task for wanting to preserve the actual work they have done to develop their nation when MCS policies essentially can lead to totally making any meaningful cultural development 100% irrelevant, period.

If it is the sense of the greater MCS membership to disregard this point, fine, I cannot convince everyone and I'm sure everyone will chalk this up to a case of "the glass slippers being too tight and my wallet being to small for my Benjamins", and that's fine. But I think this point at least deserves to be mentioned. The cultural development rule is NOT consistent in MCS policies, which leads me to think that this is really about something else. What is it then? I don't know. Maybe someone can answer that for me. But until then, this inconsistency will cause nations that have been on the map forever like Alexandria to take measures to protect themselves and the relevance of what cultural development has been made in their nation.

Edgard wrote:Our beef has never been with the organization and when we signed onto the letter, we decided to do so because it was not a finger pointing angry rant, but a list of suggestions to consider. However, I do have to make a point - many of the requirements that are being discussed, such as expansions, are being tied to cultural development and rightfully so.

Thanks for clarifying. The way it sounded was that there was something major that I'd completely overlooked!

However, now we find ourselves in Alexandria with the very awkward situation of having citizens that have done the cultural and political work to develop their provinces and territories finding that their province or territory of residence just disappeared. Or even worse, new citizens coming in and asking where their intended province of residence is on the map and telling them that, well, it's not there anymore.
...
I think activity for everyone ebbs and flows, sometimes plunging deeply and other times surging high, and policies to take that into account make sense. But you can't take nations to task for wanting to preserve the actual work they have done to develop their nation when MCS policies essentially can lead to totally making any meaningful cultural development 100% irrelevant, period.

Unfortunately, that's how it is. I don't mean to sound harsh or uncaring, but sometimes sacrifices have to be made when inactivity strikes. It's not like we just get rid of territories out of the blue, either, as inactivity has to be sustained to require a reduction. So, if people go missing for a number of months at a time, there shouldn't be an expectation to be able to return and have everything the same as before - and I don't just mean due to reductions; in that time someone new could come-in and supersede their position in that territory, for example, too. As disappointing as it may be for both nations and individuals alike, it's a necessary evil that we must embrace. Obviously we can ease-up on our minimum activity judgement, as mentioned in this thread, but if a rule was in-place that nations need to reach only ten posts a month to avoid reduction, Alexandria would still have had a reduction notice served in January. It's not about making cultural development irrelevant, but as good work a nation has achieved in their history, we can't justify allowing an inactive nation to maintain a huge amount of land because they used to develop culturally.

I feel this is where the meaningful development part stops being consistent across the board in the MCS policies. A lot of the discussion seems to me circled around the notion of what's fair, and I think fairness comes hand in hand with consistency in the application of a policy in an organization.

I like to feel that the MCS works consistently and as fair as is possible. I'd like to know what you're comparing situations with to come to the conclusion of a lack of consistency in how we work, if only for the sake of being able to see what was done differently and where

The cultural development rule is NOT consistent in MCS policies, which leads me to think that this is really about something else. What is it then? I don't know. Maybe someone can answer that for me.

I'm not quite sure which part of the Charter you're referring to by "cultural development rule", but you have to remember that as much as we take culture into consideration when judging claims of all kinds (including reductions), activity is a major player in that process and is the only quantifiable data we can use. Other than that, there's nothing else, especially nothing sneaky or underhand...

Alexandria is at least as large as the real-life country of Canada. You can hardly complain about not having enough space for you citizens, regardless of the number of provinces or what have you. Use the area you have, it's huge.

Malliki... that was not my complaint at all. But I expected that it would be characterized as such... oh well.

The rules on that subject are the same as they've always been, once your activity gets back up, you get to reclaim it. The logic of 'we used to be active, so we should keep the lot' is as ridiculous as England claiming they should be top of the world rankings because they won in 1966.

In fact, the larger nations already have a huge advantage, because we only require 1 PPD to maintain your current claims, which in a nation of 10 citizens is a lot easier than a one-man nation.

Copy-pasting Jingdaoese official reply to this:

The Holy Empire of Jingdao distances itself from the open letter sent to the MCS by the barbarians of the Purple Horde, the Blue Cockroachhybrids and the Orange Lepercolony. It is clear that these nations of impurest infidels care about nothing but their own interest, which is always opposed to the blind justice of the Craitgod. Those three nations wish to bend the rules so they can get territory they do not deserve, they deserve none at all. Their foul smell makes it unpleasant to live on the surface of Micras and their round eyes are repulsive. We pray to Craitgod that he will not give in to this axis of evil but will help us remove them from the map.

Also, I disagree that to keep cultural work you have to keep territory. Jingdao has had territories on many places in Micras. Our cultural work is not gone because we don't have those territories anymore, they are part of closed chapters in the Book of Purity.

I like to feel that the MCS works consistently and as fair as is possible. I'd like to know what you're comparing situations with to come to the conclusion of a lack of consistency in how we work, if only for the sake of being able to see what was done differently and where

From February to September of last year, Gralus never met the 1 PPD minimum for any of those months. The reduction policy was in place, and never applied. No meaningful cultural development of any sort except for the long and drawn out conversation to end Gralus.

And I don't see Craitland getting its "polite notice" either despite being below 1 PPD since March.

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.

Well, the reduction of Alexandria's territory was done voluntarily viewtopic.php?p=82216#p82216

If Craitland also feel that a reduction would be warranted, they can feel free to submit one, otherwise, it's up to the discretion of the Council.

You'll never find out if Alexandria will be rejected if you don't bother to claim... You've had nearly 20 PPD for the last 3 months.

http://empireofthealexandrians.org/comm ... p?tid=2468

The only thing that was voluntary was that we got to pick where we could reduce ourselves. Craitman said several times if we didn't do it by a certain date, he'd apply an arbitrary reduction. We had to put through a hasty solution to the issue in the Chamber of Citizens. So I reject your premise that this was 100% voluntary. That is wrong... and it still does not address the fact that the policy has not been adequately enforced at all.

If it was up to the Council to make this decision, then I would like to ask why has the policy not been applied to Gralus and Craitland as it should have.