Hub.mn

Greetings excellencies of the council,

with respect to the recent voting by the latest full member of this society's council, the Republic of Sankt Ludwigshafen would like to offer a dissenting opinion with regards to Part G, Article 2c, of the charter. We do not agree that this article requires nations to ask their neighbors for permission to expand, but rather states that the nation's participation in and contributions to the international community should be considered as a qualification for activity.

We remain to have full confidence in the council, and hope the council will answer our concerns.

For the sake of novelty, as much as anything else, the Unified Governorates of Benacia concurs with the interpretation put forward by Sankt Ludwigshafen.

Sanama concurs with this interpretation. Consultation with other nations has never been a criteria and requiring such consultation without explicit support in the Charter sets a dangerous precedent.

I believe that, if the council were to move to adopt the interpretation of Arkadius, this should first of all be discussed among its members. I'm not sure if this point was considered as a reason for having Arkadius on the council as well.

For the uniformity of the Council, I feel it's crucial that there is one single position on this and not that the various council members use their own interpretation at will.

I don't think a single interpretation is necessary or even valid. Arkadius's points are not ones that I necessarily might agree with, but they were clearly communicated upon his candidacy, and the Council did vote him in. Not abiding by his own interpretation would be hypocritical of him. A vote requires three affirmatives to pass, and if other councillors have other opinions, which they have, then surely Arkadius's sole opinion on something is nothing of bearing. I think it might be a good thing in the long run, as it might foster diplomacy and friendship in a world torn by discord.

Discord has always been a part of Micras and I don't think it's particularly higher or lower than ever. I don't think it's the Council's business to start forcing people to play nice with each other. This isn't kindergarten and the Council is not Miss Honey. I have a feeling this would cause more folks to find joining the Council to not spark joy for them, I'm sure!

As someone who has been in Micras long enough to be on both sides of the coin, my interpretation of the matter here seems to line up more with Raz's assessment here, personally. It's nice to check with your neighbors if you want to expand, that's certainly laudable. But I'm not sure that it's wise to have the Council step in here and start regulating how people relate to each other.

Dear fellow members,

It is good that this is being discussed here, because there is room for interpretation, as well as room for discussion.

Let me be very clear about one thing: my position is NOT that permission must be sought from nearby neighbours. Consultation is another matter, the matter I am arguing for.

Since the Norton year 1685, I have had a different policy. If I make a claim on something or an expansion, I inform my nearby neighbours. Whether they are friends (Ralgon and Palesmenia), or not so good friends (Floria). This policy has allowed me to focus much more on my own project. I do not want to repeat the fact that I allowed myself to be lured into the Second Amokolian War.

When I applied for the post of councillor, I already said that I make a point of 'International Collaboration' and 'geographical realism'. I believe that consultation can contribute to the game, the depth of projects and less frustration about the colour of pixels.
If a claim or expansion is only supported by activity, it does not contribute to Part G, Article 2 of the Charter. Even if a claim is substantiated by an article that exists only hours or minutes before the request, I do not consider that fair game. New nations are required to have three months of development, existing nations only activity. Basically, that's fine, but especially those who have been playing Micras for a long time should expect collaboration to be at the heart of the game.

To sum up: I am NOT asking that people should ask permission, just that they should consult. This is to avoid frustration when one has plans over the same pixels. Is that so bad?

In your vote on my recent claim you mentioned Arbor and Ralgon. These however are not direct neighbors to Calbion, since there exists a significant amount of Green between their territories and the last Calbain claims.

Also what time period are you thinking of? Would sending a PM to Nathan a few hours in advance suffice? Do I need to wait until he responds? What if there is personal animosity and somebody drags it out, or, uses this opportunity and knowledge to quickly launch a conflicting claim? That would result in annoying discussion on the forum where screenshots will need to be posted, and someone would need to prove that they were first.

I get the point you are trying to make, but I see too many practical difficulties and do not think that the way you handle things with your neighbors is necessarily a good blueprint for other nations on Micras.

Gustaaf Vermeylen wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 28, 2021 7:34 pm

New nations are required to have three months of development,

Am I being "Punk'd" or something now? New nations need one month of activity, and that requirement has been in place since mid-2014.

That aside, Ric and Edgard's points essentially cover everything I think I would say about all of this here. Arkadius' interpretation of the Charter's claim requirements is his own and indicates no particular change in policy in how other Council members will judge claims. I'm certainly not of the same mind in my interpretation of the subsection in question; consultation with neighbours is a nice idea, but a lack thereof is in no way going to have a negative impact on how I vote. Micras has always been "first come, first served" for me, and that's how I personally intend to continue approaching claims

I don't see the point in basing one's vote on this criteria. New nations can reserve land for the required month of activity, and existing nations can expand based on current activity. Where is the source of this "frustration"?

I also agree with Jack. Why should I have to tell a neighbor before I make a claim, giving that neighbor the chance to slip a claim in before me?

Both Jack's and Malliki's reaction are based on mistrust. That may be real. But do we really have to play that game? Grow up and work on your project. Sorry, but I cannot see it any other way. I know, I have come a long way.

And that frustration: it can happen when it turns out that someone else is making a claim on an area that you have in mind. You are not yet ready to claim it or you claim it in steps. While someone else quickly, often unconsciously, claims those pixels you have in mind. With some consultation, you can take away that frustration. Or agreement can be reached on the joint development of the area in question.

This discussion and my reflections over the last few days lead me to the following:
Basically, activity for nations is the main indicator for granting a request. Only as an added value, especially if the claim is somewhat larger, are the items from Part G, Article 2, important. Not necessarily all of them, but to encourage wider development.

Please note that this is my position, not necessarily that of the other members of the Council.

I don't agree with the implication above that mistrust in a political simulation is somehow a sign of immaturity, if anything it's naive to operate under the assumption that people are always trustworthy in every situation. In the same way I'm very sure that the US didn't check-in with Mexico before concluding the Louisiana purchase, and the British certainly didn't give a friendly call to German East Africa before invading and annexing Zululand, international politics usually isn't a collaborative affair.

You can argue that today's world is more based on consensus and cooperation than the examples i give (though not always, when you look at remaining territorial disputes), but that came out of the decisions of the states themselves, not because some overarching authority suddenly demanded that it be that way.

In a simulation sometime's it's in the character of a certain state to be awkward or unpredictable, and i don't think it's the council's responsibility to apply "play nice" criteria to the way that the nations of Micras interact with each other. Certainly harmonious behaviour can be encouraged, but what's being suggested here is an imposition of certain "mandatory" simulated behaviours, which is overstepping the mark in my opinion.

And I say all of this as someone with no ambitions for territorial expansion, wildcat or otherwise

George Middlemore wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 02, 2021 7:10 am

but that came out of the decisions of the states themselves, not because some overarching authority suddenly demanded that it be that way.

Anarchy is what States make of it

Gustaaf Vermeylen wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:10 pm

Both Jack's and Malliki's reaction are based on mistrust.

My two direct neighbours are Raspur members. IC it would make sense for them to impair Calbain development, as it would for Calbion to impair theirs.

Also, could you perhaps provide a response to my other questions?

At the end of the day, claiming is first come, first served. I really don't see why a potential claim in your head should affect another's claim. If you want an area, claim it, otherwise you have no say.