Hub.mn

Craitman wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:08 pm

There's a lot of misunderstand here on the topic of Altus. The nation wasn't too young to claim, as it was founded in 2017 - the issue was that for nations in their situation, we ask for a bit of sustained activity after their resurrection began. Given that it was not a new nation, it was ineligible for the current land reservation policy (which allows for new nations to develop around certain land before being old enough to claim it outright). As such, Altus only needed to wait a few days (presuming their development continued as well as it looked like it would) to be voted on, not the whole month a new nation would. Not only would land reservation not be the correct procedure, it would also be unnecessary given how little time Altus would have to wait to get to a proper vote...

THANK YOU THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS HARD TO EXPLAIN OR UNDERSTAND

Sorry. But seriously. Y'all acting like I wanted to come in here and gobble up have a continent when all I wanted was to give ample notice so I could develop a place (a bunch of islands in Eura that have not even been claimed by anyone in ages) because not designating a place where one will go is tough when developing a country.

I posted the claim in case things got lengthened to the one month mark, to which I was also prepared to say "okay".

Come on, guys. Seriously?

Craitman wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:08 pm

There's a lot of misunderstand here on the topic of Altus. The nation wasn't too young to claim, as it was founded in 2017 - the issue was that for nations in their situation, we ask for a bit of sustained activity after their resurrection began [...] As such, Altus only needed to wait a few days (presuming their development continued as well as it looked like it would) to be voted on, not the whole month a new nation would.

Prior to the project's resurrection, all that the wikipage on Altus contained was an incomplete infobox and the sentance "The Federation of Altus is a confederation of small city-states in Micras". The gap between the last wiki edit on that page and its resurrection was over a year. As such, I felt that it should be treated as a new nation, otherwise this gives an unfair advantage to the rebirth of new nations that previously had little work on them.

Craitman wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:08 pm

Given that it was not a new nation, it was ineligible for the current land reservation policy (which allows for new nations to develop around certain land before being old enough to claim it outright).

In my mind, a new nation is one that is not, and has previously, not been on the official claimsmap of Micras, not necessarily a nation that was born within the past month. As such, I still stand by my view that Altus falls under the category of a new nation.

Edgard wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:18 pm

Y'all acting like I wanted to come in here and gobble up have a continent when all I wanted was to give ample notice so I could develop a place (a bunch of islands in Eura that have not even been claimed by anyone in ages) because not designating a place where one will go is tough when developing a country.

All I'm trying to do is enforce, and clarify, the charter and the policies of the MCS, and apply them fairly. I also resent, as you have used elsewhere, the notion that this is some sort of "attack". It is not. I am more than happy to have an active Altus on the map. All I'm trying to do is enforce the rules.

Orion wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:32 pm

That the method for handling claims such as Altus could be done a little better. Barnaby pointed out that Altus wasn't old enough to claim, essentially shutting down the conversation. But he didn't offer a reservation as an alternative. Neither did Jack.

We are talking about a discussion of only a couple of hours here. I literally only asked a question, and so did Barnaby. I honestly don't get why it escalated so quickly and that Ed withdrew the claim immediately. If you read the threat you see that actually the MCS was very open to the idea of reserving the islands for Altus when they were old enough to claim.

If we want to encourage people to enjoy this hobby, then we have to make them feel welcome. The current method is not all that user friendly.

I disagree, I think it is very user friendly. We actually ask very little from nations other than 1) a month of some sustained activity and 2) a little bit of development. I would not be in favour of granting just any claimant the immediate right to reserve pieces of land rightaway, and I think that indeed it should be the Council to make a decision on that. Bluntly put: if a country like Altus claims, the council would grant them this right; if some microwiki guy who we don't know and who doesn't speak proper English requests to reserve land, the council might reject. I believe this room for determination of merit is very important, and should remain with the council.

Edgard wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:18 pm

orry. But seriously. Y'all acting like I wanted to come in here and gobble up have a continent when all I wanted was to give ample notice so I could develop a place (a bunch of islands in Eura that have not even been claimed by anyone in ages) because not designating a place where one will go is tough when developing a country.

I posted the claim in case things got lengthened to the one month mark, to which I was also prepared to say "okay".

Come on, guys. Seriously?

Nobody is acting like that as far as I am aware. The MCS would have been very open to allowing Altus to reserve land. Why you immediately withdrew your claim, I don't know, but if you hadn't done that, you'd have a reservation on the islands right now and could have continued their development.

Nobody is acting like that as far as I am aware. The MCS would have been very open to allowing Altus to reserve land. Why you immediately withdrew your claim, I don't know, but if you hadn't done that, you'd have a reservation on the islands right now and could have continued their development.

That is certainly not the vibe I picked up from the discussion. Everyone was saying I couldn't.

I withdrew my claim because I no longer have the patience nor the desire to have to submit things to a committee to approve when I can draw my own maps and do everything else. I don't need to put up with this unpleasantness - but that is neither here nor there.

Senya wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:33 pm

Prior to the project's resurrection, all that the wikipage on Altus contained was an incomplete infobox and the sentance "The Federation of Altus is a confederation of small city-states in Micras". The gap between the last wiki edit on that page and its resurrection was over a year. As such, I felt that it should be treated as a new nation, otherwise this gives an unfair advantage to the rebirth of new nations that previously had little work on them.

...

In my mind, a new nation is one that is not, and has previously, not been on the official claimsmap of Micras, not necessarily a nation that was born within the past month. As such, I still stand by my view that Altus falls under the category of a new nation.

We've had plenty of precedent for nations in Altus' situation, where the project is old enough but its activity has lulled. Granted, Altus may have pushed that situation to an extreme with its minimal initial activity, but all we ask is for a nation to have any online presence for over thirty days. Altus' online presence, in any form, far exceeds thirty days.

By "new", I was solely referring to newly-founded nations; i.e. nations too young to claim. Most nations which come to the map to claim without ever appearing on Micras before (your definition of "new" to Micras) are not "new" in the sense of being newly-founded. I certainly didn't think of two-year-old Senya as a "new" project when it claimed, for example

Craitman wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:37 am

We've had plenty of precedent for nations in Altus' situation, where the project is old enough but its activity has lulled. Granted, Altus may have pushed that situation to an extreme with its minimal initial activity, but all we ask is for a nation to have any online presence for over thirty days. Altus' online presence, in any form, far exceeds thirty days.

By "new", I was solely referring to newly-founded nations; i.e. nations too young to claim. Most nations which come to the map to claim without ever appearing on Micras before (your definition of "new" to Micras) are not "new" in the sense of being newly-founded. I certainly didn't think of two-year-old Senya as a "new" project when it claimed, for example

Yes, but if they were only active for one day well over a year ago, it's not really the same as if a nation claims having at the very least a semi-regular updates like we, or most other former MW/wikia nations had, so I don't that's a fair comparison to levy.

Edgard wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:26 am

That is certainly not the vibe I picked up from the discussion. Everyone was saying I couldn't.

The 'vibe' you picked up then came from misreading what I said. I never said I was going to reject Altus's claim entirely.

Edgard wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:26 am

I withdrew my claim because I no longer have the patience nor the desire to have to submit things to a committee to approve when I can draw my own maps and do everything else. I don't need to put up with this unpleasantness - but that is neither here nor there.

End of the day, we have a committee, and as a former council member yourself, you should know that we have a duty to discuss claims and interpret the charter. Literally all I have said is that at the time you posted the original claim form, was that I didn't think that at the time Altus met the age requirement for Micras.

If you want to be part of this community, you have to abide by its rules and its formalities. Yes, they can at times be frustrating, I've had my fair share of getting pissed at people and the rules, but it's part of the deal when you're in a constructive project with other people.

End of the day, we have a committee, and as a former council member yourself, you should know that we have a duty to discuss claims and interpret the charter. Literally all I have said is that at the time you posted the original claim form, was that I didn't think that at the time Altus met the age requirement for Micras.

If you want to be part of this community, you have to abide by its rules and its formalities. Yes, they can at times be frustrating, I've had my fair share of getting pissed at people and the rules, but it's part of the deal when you're in a constructive project with other people.

No need to lecture me. I was part of this community since 2002, I am well aware of how it works.

Alright, so infighting aside, can we turn this discussion back to focusing on how we can rectify the situation so as to prevent a recurrence of this event? The idea of a placeholder policy has met with general approval, so I would ask the Council to review it in more detail.

I'd advise, for nations who are too old to request a genuine land reservation and are too inactive to merit claiming straight away, but wish to make their desires clear, that such claims be asked by the claimant to be put on hold as soon as they're submitted. It's not a radical idea, granted, but it's surely reasonable enough an approach for nations who don't merit the land yet...

Craitman wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:08 pm

I'd advise, for nations who are too old to request a genuine land reservation and are too inactive to merit claiming straight away, but wish to make their desires clear, that such claims be asked by the claimant to be put on hold as soon as they're submitted. It's not a radical idea, granted, but it's surely reasonable enough an approach for nations who don't merit the land yet...

I echo these sentiments. I believe the council has enough tools to implement this policy (as it already has in the past years), and that there are no amendments to the charter necessary to achieve the desired outcome.

Jack wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 26, 2019 8:26 pm

Craitman wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:08 pm

I'd advise, for nations who are too old to request a genuine land reservation and are too inactive to merit claiming straight away, but wish to make their desires clear, that such claims be asked by the claimant to be put on hold as soon as they're submitted. It's not a radical idea, granted, but it's surely reasonable enough an approach for nations who don't merit the land yet...

I echo these sentiments. I believe the council has enough tools to implement this policy (as it already has in the past years), and that there are no amendments to the charter necessary to achieve the desired outcome.

That may be so, but if you don't add it to the charter, then how are people supposed to know about it? That just puts us back into the same situation.

Orion wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 27, 2019 1:58 am

That may be so, but if you don't add it to the charter, then how are people supposed to know about it? That just puts us back into the same situation.

The age limit requirement is mentioned in the Charter, yet I've lost count of the number of times nations have claimed before they're old enough. People just don't read it. In those situations, we just tell them the situation - I'm pretty sure we can do the same here: "Unfortunately, we require a certain level of sustained activity from a nation that's been recently resurrected. Would you like to put your claim on hold for the next couple of weeks until you've done some work on it all?". If they don't wish to hold it, we'll vote on it straight away and inevitably reject it...

Craitman wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:53 am

Orion wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 27, 2019 1:58 am

That may be so, but if you don't add it to the charter, then how are people supposed to know about it? That just puts us back into the same situation.

The age limit requirement is mentioned in the Charter, yet I've lost count of the number of times nations have claimed before they're old enough. People just don't read it. In those situations, we just tell them the situation - I'm pretty sure we can do the same here: "Unfortunately, we require a certain level of sustained activity from a nation that's been recently resurrected. Would you like to put your claim on hold for the next couple of weeks until you've done some work on it all?". If they don't wish to hold it, we'll vote on it straight away and inevitably reject it...

Your statement reflects what I pointed out earlier in that the response by Council members to the claim could have been worded less confrontationally.

Orion wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:07 pm

Your statement reflects what I pointed out earlier in that the response by Council members to the claim could have been worded less confrontationally.

If by "the claim" you mean specifically Altus', I don't disagree there, even if the overwhelming factor was more that of confusion than malice. As I mentioned in Altus' claim thread, it was a regret of mine that I was unable to reply to the situation before it was seemingly beyond repair...

Craitman wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:47 pm

If by "the claim" you mean specifically Altus', I don't disagree there, even if the overwhelming factor was more that of confusion than malice. As I mentioned in Altus' claim thread, it was a regret of mine that I was unable to reply to the situation before it was seemingly beyond repair...

I never suggested there was malice, only that the wording was misconstrued as confrontational. The entire situation is regrettable, but you can't be expected to be there to defuse every situation. It might not be a bad idea to consider a training module for Council members. I'm also trying to update MicrasWiki's main page with up-to-date links and writing up the long-absent "I'm new!" page.