Hub.mn

Regarding Rasmus' present claim, I took a look to see what the Charter says on such things:

13. Land

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a member of the Society shall not have the right to claim any part of the map other than land.

(2) A member shall have the right to:
(a) make small claims on ice where that ice is in reasonable proximity to land claimed by them, and
(b) make claims on islands too small to be displayed on the map, that is to say of a size smaller than one half of a pixel.

On the face of it, this would appear to prohibit claims based on drifting artificial structures. Such a structure could claim to touch the ocean bottom, but that leaves the following questions:

1. Does that make it an island?

2. Even if it does, could such a thing be considered feasible in the claimed location? The only bathymetric reference I know of, the Minarborian Admiralty Map, gives the site as 4 kilometres deep (a little over the depth of the Titanic wreck). Admittedly the map doesn't feature extended shelves, seamounts etc. but as far as I'm aware no work has been done to place such things by anyone else.

It seems some work is required to clarify the permissibility of oil rig claims in the Charter and/or devise a bathymetric map for Micras' oceans.

Discuss.

I see no reason why the Minarborian Admiralty Map does not include the ridge our oil rig was established on.

Apart from the difficulties you're giving me, just want to say that map looks great.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing especially against your glorious rig (the concept is interesting/amusing enough) it just falls into a gap in MCS policy and I think it's a worthy exercise to see where the council/community consensus is.

As for the map, dear old Shyriath nearly cut my head off for its lack of undersea formations but a) that's a whole project in itself, b) it wasn't Minarboria's place to unilaterally impose such a thing, and c) there isn't even a consensus on where Micras' tectonic boundaries are, which is essential for a true picture of the ocean floor. As it was, I just needed to figure out a very rough depth picture and plankton availability for Minarboria's sub fleet. Kinda redundant now I'm based in a landlocked state...

I guess the closest thing we've had to this is Straylight, but that was, of course, just a labelled division of an existing nation rather than a nation in its own right. In terms of independent nations smaller than one pixel, then the Franklin Islands are a precedent, but were also explicitly actual islands, rather than a man-made structure. Ultimately, I think the Charter does fall on the side of not permitting this claim, unfortunately.

I'll add that I'm curious as to the Oil Rig's aim in existing. The Sealand comparison is too obvious to ignore, so is it intended to be some kinda meta-referential micro-micronation where we only ever deny it any chance of genuine statehood despite its borderline-meeting of certain criteria à la Roughs Tower? And if so, were we to accept it as an MCS member, would that then make it redundant as a micro-micronation?

Who's to say it doesn't contain other micronations within itself? Its kitchen could be an independent state, fighting its own war against a cutlery-drawer secessionist movement composed of an uneasy alliance between the Fork Mafia and the Spoon Collective. It could be micronations all the way down...

Where were we? Ah yes... I can get behind the ridge idea. Bijaro's Pangaea model suggests the seperation of Tapfer and Eura by a divergent plate boundary, implying in turn a substantial mid-oceanic ridge which passes the Old Oil Rig's approximate location (also enough geothermal activity to assure Olriggian autarky with the right technological input, but that's another matter).

That established, there's only the matter of whether the artificial extension of an undersea landmass counts as part of that landmass, making its surface part an island and therefore claimable. On the one hand it gets the Oil Rig on the map - on the other, it opens the door to all manner of land-creation shenanigans of the kind which have strained the MCS' credibility in the past. Then again, reality has caught up with such things in recent times.

Such a decision could be a mere matter of interpretation of 'island' status which doesn't require a charter amendment and is expressed through claim votes, but there is a risk of wandering standards if a) the MCS Council is sufficiently divergent on the matter, and b) future MCS Councils choose not to adhere to any precedents established now. It seems to me that whatever the consensus is should be codified either way, to avoid headaches further down the line.

Yastreb wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:08 am

Such a decision could be a mere matter of interpretation of 'island' status which doesn't require a charter amendment and is expressed through claim votes, but there is a risk of wandering standards if a) the MCS Council is sufficiently divergent on the matter, and b) future MCS Councils choose not to adhere to any precedents established now. It seems to me that whatever the consensus is should be codified either way, to avoid headaches further down the line.

I guess we, as the Council, don't necessarily have to change anything about what constitutes an "island" if the Old Oil Rig is able to gain official recognition by a majority of existing MCS members. I think, given the type of claim put forward, that may be the fairest way to judge whether they join Micras or not, if most nations are okay with it. It should be a lot less contentious that way than if we were to vote to accept it only to receive backlash from nations or start a wave of people pushing their luck with increasingly ridiculous claims on things!

You guys set a precedent for allowing this type of thing when you approved the Franklin Islands claim.

No, we set a precedent for small islands. By definition, a rig is not an island, and the Old Oil Rig doesn't seem to have any pretence of calling itself an island

As I said above, Straylight is/was the closest situation to this...

Orion wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 02, 2018 1:43 pm

You guys set a precedent for allowing this type of thing when you approved the Franklin Islands claim.

Yastreb wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:34 pm

(2) A member shall have the right to:
(a) make small claims on ice where that ice is in reasonable proximity to land claimed by them, and
(b) make claims on islands too small to be displayed on the map, that is to say of a size smaller than one half of a pixel.

I do though admit that I was and always have been a bit sceptical about the whole Franklin Islands things and I think there was a chance that if it had been anyone but Joe that had applied there's a strong chance it would have been rejected anyway. For me, 2(b) would refer to coastal islands/islands in rivers/lakes that are too small to appear on the global map, not islands in the middle of nowhere.

Regardless, given the specific wording of 2(b), I'd have to agree that the Oil Rig doesn't qualify as being eligable for MCS membership.

It's hardly catastrophic if the Old Oil Rig can't claim - any number of Micran nations throughout history could be said to have engaged in offshore drilling, but none have felt it necessary to have the MCS map specially reflect this. Secondly as Crait noted, such a structure claiming sovereignty can easily assuage its desire for recognition by petitioning individual MCS member states. Thirdly, such a small and nondescript speck of ocean is unlikely to become a scarce resource or be undercut by the claims of other powers.

I'm reminded of Jingdao's "empire-at-sea" phase - perhaps the Old Oil Rig could emulate that?

Senya wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:43 pm

if it had been anyone but Joe that had applied there's a strong chance it would have been rejected anyway.

And just what is that supposed to mean?

The Franklin Island claim was just made as a proof of concept, I'm wasn't even sure that it would be accepted, but I think with decent enough development that makes sense of why such a strange claim exists, the Council can use their discretion as to whether to accept it or not.

joefoxon wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:19 am

And just what is that supposed to mean?

I read that as: 1) Senya only voted in favor of the reclaim because you are a council member. 2) Your claim was originally only accepted because you are a council member. Or 3) My claim will be rejected because I am not a council member.

All of which are perfectly understandable.

Rasmus wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 03, 2018 11:53 am

joefoxon wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:19 am

And just what is that supposed to mean?

I read that as: 1) Senya only voted in favor of the reclaim because you are a council member. 2) Your claim was originally only accepted because you are a council member. Or 3) My claim will be rejected because I am not a council member.

All of which are perfectly understandable.

I'd certainly hope that as a former Council member yourself, you'd know that we have more integrity than that...

joefoxon wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:10 pm

I'd certainly hope that as a former Council member yourself, you'd know that we have more integrity than that...

I'm not the one making that claim.