Placeholder Policy
Moderator: Staff
Re: Placeholder Policy
Fair enough. I also apologize for my own shortcomings and animosity I may have instigated as well. As I see I am now being called petulant for defending myself, there's really no use for me to continue with this discussion.
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!
-
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:39 am
Re: Placeholder Policy
Surely nothing like this has ever happened in the history of our honorable community
""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: Placeholder Policy
Just some mild clarification on some of the above stuff:
That we spoke beforehand was the reason why the claim wasn't moved to the Council by myself immediately after being submitted. It was also the reason I didn't reply to it explaining that Altus wasn't quite old enough and we'd expect a week or so's proof that its rebirth was successful - we'd already spoken about it. In the same way that you could have included that information in the initial claim, I equally could have mentioned that fact for the benefit of the other Council members, so I apologise for the subsequent misunderstandings which could have been cleared-up there.
With Altus being over thirty days of age, then subsection 9.(2) of the Charter wasn't really applicable to its claim, so there was some square peg-round hole confusion there. As you say, we require nations to have documented existence over thirty days, but we do expect a some sustained activity after that point (akin to how we expect nations on the map to stay remotely active). The three-nation limit was introduced in June 2014 to allow extra side-projects to individualsEdgard wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 1:32 pmBolding for emphasis, not confrontation.(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.
I was acting sincerely and in accordance to the Charter. This was disregarded despite my many clarifications of my intentions. Then I had the Charter quoted back at me.
...
I never pursued it because I thought for some reason the limit on projects was 2 and not 3. (Is that right? I just learned that from the April Fools joke.) From what I have consistently seen all the MCS asks is that people be active for more than 30 days. Altus qualified, having been founded in December of 2017.
...
I had spoke to Craitman in advance on that and he had assured me that it was okay if I claimed after a week of activity. I was scared the lands would be claimed by someone else so I pulled the trigger four days before the week time was up. All I really asked for was a four day placehold. Was it seriously too much to reasonably ask?
That we spoke beforehand was the reason why the claim wasn't moved to the Council by myself immediately after being submitted. It was also the reason I didn't reply to it explaining that Altus wasn't quite old enough and we'd expect a week or so's proof that its rebirth was successful - we'd already spoken about it. In the same way that you could have included that information in the initial claim, I equally could have mentioned that fact for the benefit of the other Council members, so I apologise for the subsequent misunderstandings which could have been cleared-up there.
The claim form did list "Altus" under the "Nation" option, mind. Small mistakes happen though; some people even struggle spelling their own nation's name correctly when claiming
Re: Placeholder Policy
The argument could be made that the more 'executive' role of an Administrator General entitles them to conduct closed discussions with claimants on technical matters without having to relay it for the benefit of purely 'legislative' councillors, but this would also call into question the present voting convention whereby councillors can initiate votes without the information obtained from unseen side-discussions. Whilst I'd personally consider this to vindicate my disdain for the trend of subjecting important community business to the incestuous caprice of Discord etc, I recognise that I'm yelling against the wind of consensus here.Craitman wrote:That we spoke beforehand was the reason why the claim wasn't moved to the Council by myself immediately after being submitted. It was also the reason I didn't reply to it explaining that Altus wasn't quite old enough and we'd expect a week or so's proof that its rebirth was successful - we'd already spoken about it. In the same way that you could have included that information in the initial claim, I equally could have mentioned that fact for the benefit of the other Council members, so I apologise for the subsequent misunderstandings which could have been cleared-up there.
As a councillor I would gladly surrender the power of vote initiation to the Administrator-General alone, to avoid further incidents like this. As cautious as I am about resting vital community functions upon a single point of failure, your activity in MCS business has been consistent for several years and I don't foresee the repatriation of certain powers to the chair causing problems at this stage.
Re: Placeholder Policy
Wouldn't it just be a whole lot easier to add a Placeholder option?
"A claimant that does not meet the age requirement can reserve a portion of land as a placeholder - corresponding to their core territory - for a period up to the term of time required to meet standard criteria. This reservation is dependent upon the claimant meeting all other required activity levels as per the terms of the Charter. The Council reserves the right to revoke the reservation at any time should it be deemed the claimant is not meeting the aforementioned requirements."
"A claimant that does not meet the age requirement can reserve a portion of land as a placeholder - corresponding to their core territory - for a period up to the term of time required to meet standard criteria. This reservation is dependent upon the claimant meeting all other required activity levels as per the terms of the Charter. The Council reserves the right to revoke the reservation at any time should it be deemed the claimant is not meeting the aforementioned requirements."
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Placeholder Policy
I'd not blame Discord entirely - the conversation I had with Ed about Altus is one I've had via Skype, PMs and emails countless times regarding other nations over the yearsYastreb wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:30 amWhilst I'd personally consider this to vindicate my disdain for the trend of subjecting important community business to the incestuous caprice of Discord etc, I recognise that I'm yelling against the wind of consensus here.
As a councillor I would gladly surrender the power of vote initiation to the Administrator-General alone, to avoid further incidents like this.
I think only having the Administrator-General responsible for moving claims to voting could be a bit overkill, especially when it comes to Council members' nations' claims - they'd surely not want to wait however many hours just for me to do something they could have done when submitting it. I appreciate the thought though, but I'd hate to think the "C" in MCS would end-up standing for "Craitman" if I conducted everything
It'd be easier if we had that exact same policy already in place, as - like I've mentioned multiple times now - we actually do. In Altus' case, the issue was never the nation's age, otherwise section 9.(2)'s land reservation clause could have applied. Continuing to argue for something we have in place already makes no sense - if your idea is to support the claims of nations in Altus' situation, word a paragraph that legitimises reserving land for nations which are old enough but not active enough to merit joining...
Re: Placeholder Policy
Since you already clearly have something in mind, why don't you present said paragraph?Craitman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:29 pmIt'd be easier if we had that exact same policy already in place, as - like I've mentioned multiple times now - we actually do. In Altus' case, the issue was never the nation's age, otherwise section 9.(2)'s land reservation clause could have applied. Continuing to argue for something we have in place already makes no sense - if your idea is to support the claims of nations in Altus' situation, word a paragraph that legitimises reserving land for nations which are old enough but not active enough to merit joining...
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21549
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Placeholder Policy
That must only be clear to you, as I don't have anything in mind as it's not something I'd personally support. I'm saying that the proposals you've put forward don't actually address the thing with which you've found issue for cases such as Altus'...