Regarding internal borders
Moderator: Staff
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Regarding internal borders
We went over this during a lengthy discussion via PM discussing their expansion. The Charter doesn't permit multiple leaderships (barring elected ones, where terms are effectively temporary), so having five nations all ruled by the same person is possibly the most anti-Charter thing you could dojoefoxon wrote:Then you need to claim them as separate nations, not as part of one claim.
The CCR is a nation which has further nations within in. There are a number of similar examples on the map already (Elwynn, Jingdao, even Craitland), so this isn't out-of-place. I think the EU analogy is a bit of a misnomer as there is clear sovereignty between its members, whereas the CCR nations have much stronger ties and, most importantly, the same monarch
Re: Regarding internal borders
Good point. I guess I overlooked that. Perhaps a better example would be the Commonwealth of Nations - of which Elizabeth II is Head. All 52 nations accept Her Majesty as such, and the 16 Commonwealth Realms recognize her as their Sovereign.Craitman wrote:We went over this during a lengthy discussion via PM discussing their expansion. The Charter doesn't permit multiple leaderships (barring elected ones, where terms are effectively temporary), so having five nations all ruled by the same person is possibly the most anti-Charter thing you could dojoefoxon wrote:Then you need to claim them as separate nations, not as part of one claim.
The CCR is a nation which has further nations within in. There are a number of similar examples on the map already (Elwynn, Jingdao, even Craitland), so this isn't out-of-place. I think the EU analogy is a bit of a misnomer as there is clear sovereignty between its members, whereas the CCR nations have much stronger ties and, most importantly, the same monarch
Re: Regarding internal borders
Both of these analogies are problematic because of the prohibition on joint leadership. Would Pakistan, Tuvalu and Australia make sense as being coloured the same colour on a map as the UK? Whereas, colouring England and Scotland together makes absolute sense. I think this Commonwealth is (from the MCS point of view) regarded, in spite of rhetoric, as a unified micronational project or federal union akin to the UK or US rather than a international association.Charles I wrote:Good point. I guess I overlooked that. Perhaps a better example would be the Commonwealth of Nations - of which Elizabeth II is Head. All 52 nations accept Her Majesty as such, and the 16 Commonwealth Realms recognize her as their Sovereign.Craitman wrote:The CCR is a nation which has further nations within in. There are a number of similar examples on the map already (Elwynn, Jingdao, even Craitland), so this isn't out-of-place. I think the EU analogy is a bit of a misnomer as there is clear sovereignty between its members, whereas the CCR nations have much stronger ties and, most importantly, the same monarch
Formerly His Imperial Niftiness Yardistanislaus du Grifos, former Kaiser of Shireroth
Now just Vilhelm Benkern, Count of Mar Sara
Suzerain of Hawshire // Peil̊åkti an Ixraǔtn | Protector of the Safir // Xonuti Shawa 'allumi Sanilla'i'i | King of the Free State of Sanilla
Now just Vilhelm Benkern, Count of Mar Sara
Suzerain of Hawshire // Peil̊åkti an Ixraǔtn | Protector of the Safir // Xonuti Shawa 'allumi Sanilla'i'i | King of the Free State of Sanilla
Re: Regarding internal borders
Well, I suppose I could see Tuvalu, the UK, and Australia being colored the same color. Not Pakistan though, it's a Commonwealth nation, not a realm. I agree though, it doesn't make too much sense.Kaiser Stan I wrote: Both of these analogies are problematic because of the prohibition on joint leadership. Would Pakistan, Tuvalu and Australia make sense as being coloured the same colour on a map as the UK? Whereas, colouring England and Scotland together makes absolute sense. I think this Commonwealth is (from the MCS point of view) regarded, in spite of rhetoric, as a unified micronational project or federal union akin to the UK or US rather than a international association.
Perhaps the US or the UK, as you mention, would be a better example after all. On most (American) maps though, the US is still divided into states. I'm not sure about UK ones.
BTW: If any Council Members (besides Craitman and Rook) happen to see this, please vote on the Commonwealth claim at your convenience. It is still open and has only had two definite votes I believe.
Re: Regarding internal borders
Couldn't help but notice the "village" and "hamlets" labels.
Senya is based on Norfolk pretty much - with 1 pixel on the map being 12x12, in that are there would be enough for 3 or 4 villages. I know the village I live in (macronationally), is only mapped on extremely large county maps of Norfolk, and the AA Road Atlas of Britain. So why on a world map would these be marked?
Senya is based on Norfolk pretty much - with 1 pixel on the map being 12x12, in that are there would be enough for 3 or 4 villages. I know the village I live in (macronationally), is only mapped on extremely large county maps of Norfolk, and the AA Road Atlas of Britain. So why on a world map would these be marked?
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Regarding internal borders
Well it's pretty much agreed that the "hamlet" symbol is a redundant idea anyway as anything that small probably isn't noteworthy enough to be labelled in the first place. In regards to what has been labelled as "villages", I think that's really a case of semantics. Orion's American, so (and I'm not exactly an expect on the lingo across the pond, so forgive me if this isn't right) what they may refer to as a village is actually more of a town over here. The rough guidance towards what population would fit each symbol would be something like towns: <100,000, small cities: 100,000 - 1 million, and large cities: >1 million, if that helps clarify things a bit more
Also, the symbols aren't meant to be directly proportionate to the area of the settlement. I doubt (m)any of the capitals on the map are actually 60-odd miles in diameter, for example
Also, the symbols aren't meant to be directly proportionate to the area of the settlement. I doubt (m)any of the capitals on the map are actually 60-odd miles in diameter, for example
Re: Regarding internal borders
Craitman, are you still going to float this idea past the member nations?
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21547
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Regarding internal borders
I shall be soon, yes. Unfortunately I had a bitch of a fever throughout last week, so everything got delayed a bit, hence why the map archive was only done last night
Re: Regarding internal borders
Ah, no worries. Wellness always takes priority!
Re: Regarding internal borders
Lies, work 'till you drop.
His Incomparable Highness,
His Matchless Grace,
His Majestic Honor,
His Eminent Splendor,
His Chivalrous Eminence,
The Rook
Lord Protector of Uantir
His Matchless Grace,
His Majestic Honor,
His Eminent Splendor,
His Chivalrous Eminence,
The Rook
Lord Protector of Uantir