Page 3 of 4

Re: Placeholder Policy

Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:25 pm
by Craitman
Orion wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:13 pm
It might not be a bad idea to consider a training module for Council members.
I'll book us up for one of those staff retreat, team-building trips if I can get a good deal too!

Re: Placeholder Policy

Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:38 pm
by Joe
Craitman wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:25 pm
Orion wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:13 pm
It might not be a bad idea to consider a training module for Council members.
I'll book us up for one of those staff retreat, team-building trips if I can get a good deal too!
Don't forget a pizza party if we hit our targets!

Re: Placeholder Policy

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:43 am
by Jack
Orion wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:13 pm
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.
I fail to see anything wrong with the response by the council (by which, since you use plural, I assume you mean Barnaby and me). We simply asked a question. When I read this discussion again I have to conclude that the only person responsible for Altus not being on the map very soon is the claimant himself, who chose to respond confrontationally in caps, and underlined and bold phrases, using words like "ridiculous" and "unreasonable". Before an actual conversation could take place, he had withdrawn his claim. So I don't see how one could draw conclusions from this on the functioning of the council and the charter, when the initial source of trouble does not rest there.

Re: Placeholder Policy

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:29 am
by Orion
Obviously the mature step here is to make light of the situation and not assume any responsibility for one's actions. :roll:

Re: Placeholder Policy

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:32 am
by Craitman
You say that as if both can't be done simultaneously, as if you're new to things here. We still just do this as a hobby remember; what expectation of a "training module" would you suggest we implement?

Re: Placeholder Policy

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:45 am
by Jack
Orion wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:29 am
Obviously the mature step here is to make light of the situation and not assume any responsibility for one's actions. :roll:
Which actions exactly?

Re: Placeholder Policy

Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:35 am
by Orion
Craitman wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:32 am
You say that as if both can't be done simultaneously, as if you're new to things here. We still just do this as a hobby remember; what expectation of a "training module" would you suggest we implement?
Regardless of whether it's a hobby or not one should not make light of losing a valuable contributor to the community. It wouldn't be all that hard to whip up a PowerPoint guide or something along those lines to walk new council members through some basics. Expectations, standards, etiquette, etc...
Jack wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:45 am
Which actions exactly?
You and Barnaby. Whether Ed overreacted or not is irrelevant to the point being made in this discussion. The point is that everyone can improve their methods of communication. As a councillor you have the faith of the entire community placed in you, and as such are held to a higher standard.

Re: Placeholder Policy

Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:46 am
by Craitman
Orion wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:35 am
Regardless of whether it's a hobby or not one should not make light of losing a valuable contributor to the community. It wouldn't be all that hard to whip up a PowerPoint guide or something along those lines to walk new council members through some basics. Expectations, standards, etiquette, etc...
I was making light of the ever-increasing expectations of the Council, not anyone's departure. Losing long-standing members of the community is indeed regretful, but people come and go - we mourned Ed "leaving" a couple of months ago, then he came back with a new nation. It's hard to keep track who's at what stage of leaving/returning sometimes.

Given that Council members aren't usually given the position on a whim, as the role requires some modicum of longevity and knowledge of the community, I'm sure most wouldn't want to be patronised by a presentation even if I could add some fancy effects. Maybe a few bullet points in a "new Council members read here" thread in AdDis could at least be something to link back to when anyone kicks-off...

Re: Placeholder Policy

Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:14 pm
by Jack
Orion wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:35 am
You and Barnaby. Whether Ed overreacted or not is irrelevant to the point being made in this discussion. The point is that everyone can improve their methods of communication. As a councillor you have the faith of the entire community placed in you, and as such are held to a higher standard.
I fail to see any error in my post which, and I repeat myself now, was merely asking a question of process.

Re: Placeholder Policy

Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 1:46 am
by Orion
Jack wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:14 pm
I fail to see any error in my post which, and I repeat myself now, was merely asking a question of process.
And I repeat my self; your tone and approach could have been expressed in a more helpful manner.

Re: Placeholder Policy

Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 1:32 pm
by Edgard
Jack wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:43 am
Orion wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:13 pm
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.
I fail to see anything wrong with the response by the council (by which, since you use plural, I assume you mean Barnaby and me). We simply asked a question. When I read this discussion again I have to conclude that the only person responsible for Altus not being on the map very soon is the claimant himself, who chose to respond confrontationally in caps, and underlined and bold phrases, using words like "ridiculous" and "unreasonable". Before an actual conversation could take place, he had withdrawn his claim. So I don't see how one could draw conclusions from this on the functioning of the council and the charter, when the initial source of trouble does not rest there.
Let's review this, because I'm really resentful of being painted here as someone who was being dramatic for the sake of being dramatic and I'm personally sick of it. It's being used to mask the mistakes the Council made in handling the Altus claim and making it appear that the problem was 100% from me and I deeply resent that. There's no other way for me to take that than personal. It's a personal attack. Not to mention it's particularly rich coming from you, Jack.

Jack, when you initially asked the question, which I have mentioned was reasonable, I explained myself clearly.

I explained that it was meant as a placeholder until it was old enough to be considered, since that was the concern.

Then everyone else started piling on and repeating the same concern as if I had never clarified my intention on the original claim.

I went on to repeat the same in several places, which clearly has been ignored in your interpretation of the events.

It's really easy to be able to stand there and pin the blame on this on me, someone who was trying sincerely and in good faith to be able to claim a couple of specs of land to start a new project. I was not asking for the world. If the Council was going to say I had to wait 30 days, I also mentioned I was prepared for that.

I took the steps I took to file that claim in advance based on this part of the Charter:
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.
Bolding for emphasis, not confrontation. ;)

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.

So if your problem with me is that I used all caps and bolded and underlines things for emphasis, then I guess I can't fight with that. But be honest at least, and don't use that as a way to invalidate that I was ignmored, the Council acted on my claim prematurely despite me specifying my intentions, and when the situation only merited a clear clarification, all I got was "YOU CAN'T DO THAAAAAT". Not helpful for anyone, and that's coming from someone who has been involved in this hobby in one way or another since 2002. I followed the Charter. I saw there was plenty of precedent for my situation. And that was 100% disregarded by what was an unnecessary pile on.

The conversation took place. And it completely disregarded everything I had said, especially my clarification of intention. (In fact, when the Council prematurely started voting, they couldn't even bother to get the name of the place right, with "Altusia".)

It's super easy to pin this on me. It's convenient and really easy for anyone who wants to appear blameless.

Here's the thing, I accept that I could have handled things better. Again, bolding for emphasis and not confrontation. But when someone is not being listened, it leads to frustration, and that's what happened with me. Despite my several clarifications and good faith efforts to clarify my intentions, the Council disregarded them and went forward with the claim nonetheless. That's why I withdraw the claim and walked away from my work in exasperation and frustration. I, for one, admit to that I could have handled this better. But the Council, save for Craitman, was simply not interested in listening to me. And to crown the hostility, I get lectured with this: "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."

Well, no shit. I thought I was abiding by the rules, having been a former Council member.

Can I get at least a modicum of an effort of understanding here, at least, from anybody? This is over a couple of islands. Just a little effort to understand? Could have really gone a long way.

There has been plenty of precedent for many claims that were in Altus' situation. The project was old and then activity lulled as my attention shifted to other projects like Caputia and Wechua. 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. When everyone started airing their concerns, I addressed them clearly and stated my intentions. I don't know how clearer I could have been.

It was ridiculous. And it was unreasonable. Especially since it's not like I was trying to pull of anything illegal.

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?

No one made an effort to offer any genuine direction. If the claim forum was not the appropriate place, where else should I have placed this claim?

If it wasn't the appropriate time, then can we be more precise and clear on the precedents? I have seen participants before who wish to make some sort of "statement of intention" file them in the claims thread. Do we then need a special thread or forum for these types of claims to separate them from claims that meet all the requirements and can be moved immediately to a vote?

Let's set a clear policy and a clear expectation then. Bolding for emphasis, not confrontation.

Here's what I think we should do:

1. Have a clear rule instead of traditional precedent that gets fibbed and bent to apply to some things but not others. I thought the Charter was clear enough with 9(2), but it's clear it isn't. I think we need to maybe hash that out a bit and establish a clear rule on this and include it in the Charter or in some form of separate general thread where precedents and other traditions or rules are clearly listed. I think what Craitman had mentioned of automatically placing those claims on hold until the time comes is a good move. Let's put all these precedents in a thread for reference, along with any commentary on their interpretation. Let's make an effort to set clear expectations then.

2. Once we have set a clear rule and expectation on this, should we have these sort of placeholder claims put in a separate forum to separate from actual claims? I can understand how initially filing as a claim may confuse people. I think maybe a thread in the claim forum should do, or if people prefer, a subforum under the claims forum. That way we kinda get a snapshot all in one place of where people are working and what they're building up to.

3. People need to understand that moments like this are opportunities to clarify and teach. Not patronize and antagonize. Maybe Council members who ask questions to claimants should pay close attention to the answers they get from them? Maybe listen? I'll do the work on my end where I have to, but it's clear to me that the Council has room to grow on this and it's not my fault as Jack seems to paint it.

Re: Placeholder Policy

Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:29 pm
by Alperen
I personally prefer to have the continent full of countries at Micras.But somehow Altus looks like a new country.

Re: Placeholder Policy

Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:43 pm
by Jack
Edgard wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 1:32 pm
Let's review this, because I'm really resentful of being painted here as someone who was being dramatic for the sake of being dramatic and I'm personally sick of it. It's being used to mask the mistakes the Council made in handling the Altus claim and making it appear that the problem was 100% from me and I deeply resent that. There's no other way for me to take that than personal. It's a personal attack. Not to mention it's particularly rich coming from you, Jack.
Well, I'm sorry that you see it that way. It has nothing to do with being personal, or should I take your criticisms personal as well? Seems rather unhelpful. I am 100% sure that if you had not retracted your claim so soon, it would now be on the map, period. You did not even wait to see my response to your explanation, nor Barnaby's for that matter. Indeed, what you were asking was totally reasonable, and it would have been accepted under the current rules, which is all I wish to say about the matter and also is why I don't see the necessity for additional rules.

Re: Placeholder Policy

Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:49 pm
by Yastreb
Edgard wrote:(In fact, when the Council prematurely started voting, they couldn't even bother to get the name of the place right, with "Altusia".)
Okay, I was successfuly avoiding this conversational sewer until now but as you've seen fit to attack me directly, I'll offer my end of the story:

1. "Altusia" was, in my mind, an entirely acceptable shorthand for something calling itself the "Altusian Republic" and I stand by that. True, I find it a little irksome that people call my own creations "Kalgachians" but I tolerate it for the same reason.

2. I started the vote as a direct response to your utterance that "there isn't even a vote on the Council on this?" which I took to be a complaint that a vote had not begun yet. In the past the Council has voted on claims of unclear, disputable or marginally-insufficient age with the understanding that its publication be put on hold after an approval. I assumed this was what you were seeking, as indicated in my very next post which you made no effort to contest or further clarify your intentions but chose to withdraw the claim instead.

If we on the Council were paid to do this, you could reasonably expect the MCS to assume full responsibility for discerning claimants' intentions with regard to the invocation of specific Charter provisions in the absence of their direct citation by the claimant (as was the case in the original claim - ideally s9.2 would have been cited explicitly in the "Notes" section of the claim form, but even the general desire to hold the claim was only expressed later). But the fact is, all of us on the Council are doing this in between more pressing (and remunerated) commitments and we cannot be expected to absorb the entire risk of a confusing claim (the prevailing definition of "confusing" in this case being if the Council perceives it to be so). You've already conceded that you could have handled things better so I won't press the point any further.

As my objection to the original claim was not one of age (on reflection, in conditions of proper communication I think s9.2 is perfectly workable as it is) the only Charter revision I'd propose is a codification of "conditional votes" to pre-approve nearly-acceptable claims in such a way that final approval is suspended until the fulfilment of certain conditions. This is already being done in practice with Thracistan's recent claim, and with such an understanding - and a little less petulance on your part - the Altus vote could have remained open until the fustercluck surrounding it was settled.

Re: Placeholder Policy

Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:48 pm
by Jack
I regret any personal animosity that I inadvertedly may have instigated, and recuse myself from this awful discussion.