Official Forum for Esamir, a Nationstates Region.


    (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Share
    avatar
    Kaevi
    Ascendancy
    Ascendancy

    Posts : 335
    Join date : 2014-08-04

    (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Kaevi on Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:09 am

    Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution
    Authored by Kaevi

    With this resolution, the author seeks to improve the regional map system for the future and legitimize the regional capital.

    Article I - Map Reservation
    Section A - All geographical maps of Earth shall have between eight and twenty-five percent of their habitable land reserved for nations making their initial claim.
    Section B - Expansions by existing nations may not include land in the reserved area(s) and nations who made their initial claim in the reserved area may not expand further than three percent of their total land mass each expansion period if the expansion lies within a reserved area.
    Section C - Nations may not make an initial claim within the reserved area(s) unless ninety percent of non-reserved land has been claimed.
    Section D - Estimations as to the percentage of the map claimed shall be invested in the Map Commission (MC).
    Section E - Establishes the areas highlighted in pink below in Figure 1 as reserved areas for the current regional map as of the date of passage of this resolution. These areas may be amended by the MC.
    Section F - Establishes the names and continental boundaries shown in Figure 2 as the official names and continental boundaries for the regional map as of the date of passage of this resolution. The northwestern continent shall be named Illidia, the southern continent Terra Australis, and the middle continent with land connections to the former two continents as Medditerranea.
    Section G - In the event that any of the reserved areas fall within a map claim posted before the passage of this resolution, the establishment of the reserved area shall prevail.
    Section H - Existing nations may either donate tracts of land to become reserved area(s) or label certain areas of their lands as trust territories. In the event that all reserved areas are filled, lands labeled as trust territories will be automatically ceded to any nation making an initial claim.
    Section I - In the event that a nation who claimed a trust territory ceases to exist within the region, the land will be ceded back to the original nation to which it belonged.
    Section J - The map expansion period that occurred most recently to the passage of this resolution shall be deemed null and void.
    Section K - Establishes Figure 4 as the official map to which all future claims are to be made. This map may be altered in any way the MC sees fit.

    Article II - Map Commission
    Section A - Establishes the Map Commission (MC) as a three-member body with administrative power over any Earth-based map of the region of Esamir.
    Section B - Members of the MC may discuss topics in private before presenting their work, but may not withhold information regarding any changes made to the map or rules applied to its private functions.
    Section C - All members of the MC have equal power within the Commission, regardless of seniority. Members of the MC shall be known as Associate Map Commissioners.
    Section D - The MC has the power to approve any change to the map with a two-thirds majority among members.
    Section E - The MC has the power to determine what time map expansion periods shall occur if at all, and alterations to the size and structure of the map.
    Section F - The MC may set rules pertaining to its internal structure and procedures not listed within this resolution.
    Section G - For the initial three seats, the nations listed in Article III shall take the seats.
    Section H - Members may serve indefinitely unless removed by the Esamir General Assembly.
    Section I - If a nation leaves the MC, a vacancy must be filled by an appointment resolution. The MC may not vote a member out of the Commission.
    Section J - The Esamir General Assembly has the right to dissolve the MC at any time for any reason.

    Article III - Map Commission Appointments
    Section A - The nation of Eurasia shall take the seat of United Nations of Esamir Associate Map Commissioner.
    Upon approval, the nation of Eurasia shall assume the role immediately and remain in the position until resignation or removal by the Esamir General Assembly.
    Section B - The nation of Arveyres shall take the seat of United Nations of Esamir Associate Map Commissioner.
    Upon approval, the nation of Arveyres shall assume the role immediately and remain in the position until resignation or removal by the Esamir General Assembly.
    Section C - The nation of New Atanea shall take the seat of United Nations of Esamir Associate Map Commissioner.
    Upon approval, the nation of New Atanea shall assume the role immediately and remain in the position until resignation or removal by the Esamir General Assembly.

    Article IV - Regional Capital
    Section A - Establishes the area encircled in pink in Figure 3 as the regional territory in which the capital resides.
    Section B - The area encircled in pink in Figure 3 shall be known as the Esamir Capital Territory.
    Section C - The Esamir Capital Territory may have laws set to it that may not be considered regional law.
    Section D - All people within the region of Esamir are citizens of the Esamir Capital Territory.
    Section E - Affirms that all chambers of the United Nations government must lie within the Esamir Capital Territory.
    Section F - Establishes the flag shown in Figure 5 to be the official flag for the Esamir Capital Territory.

    Figure 1:

    Figure 2:

    Figure 3:

    Figure 4:

    Figure 5:



    Last edited by Kaevi on Thu Jul 09, 2015 1:21 am; edited 5 times in total
    avatar
    Kaevi
    Ascendancy
    Ascendancy

    Posts : 335
    Join date : 2014-08-04

    Debate Period

    Post by Kaevi on Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:12 am

    The debate period has now started, ending on July 13, 2015, at 00:00 UTC.
    Nations may close the debate period or extend it with a 4/5 majority of debating nations.
    The author of this resolution may also request to close the debate period.
    Votes will not be counted during this time.
    avatar
    Eurasia
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 999
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 42
    Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Eurasia on Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:31 am

    That is still a very small amount of land for new nations. I feel we need to somehow expand the map, although how that would be done I don't know. Really, this is just a temporary solution. We'll run out eventually.
    avatar
    Kaevi
    Ascendancy
    Ascendancy

    Posts : 335
    Join date : 2014-08-04

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Kaevi on Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:40 am

    Europe and Asia wrote:That is still a very small amount of land for new nations. I feel we need to somehow expand the map, although how that would be done I don't know. Really, this is just a temporary solution. We'll run out eventually.

    I agree completely, but felt that taking away land from some of the more... extensive... nations would make any solution impossible to pass in the GA.

    However, we could find another map similarly styled and say it is the other side of the world. Sounds silly I know, but we wouldn't have to figure out how to piece together more land masses.
    avatar
    Hunhewuguo
    Authority
    Authority

    Posts : 64
    Join date : 2014-11-04
    Location : United States

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Hunhewuguo on Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:13 am

    For Article I, I mostly agree, except that it is a temporary solution. Once 90% of the unreserved area is used, the reserved area will be used too, and then the map will be full. Perhaps we should just do away with future expansions, and new nations can take from whatever is left. If a nation wants to expand, simply taking unclaimed land will not be an option, however, they can invade another nation (it could add to the RP).

    As for Article II, I agree, except that I dislike the flag. What's wrong with using the regional flag? Also, let me make sure I understand, but everyone is a dual-citizen of their country and the Esamir Government?
    avatar
    Kaevi
    Ascendancy
    Ascendancy

    Posts : 335
    Join date : 2014-08-04

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Kaevi on Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:45 am

    Meigmaland wrote:For Article I, I mostly agree, except that it is a temporary solution. Once 90% of the unreserved area is used, the reserved area will be used too, and then the map will be full. Perhaps we should just do away with future expansions, and new nations can take from whatever is left. If a nation wants to expand, simply taking unclaimed land will not be an option, however, they can invade another nation (it could add to the RP).

    As for Article II, I agree, except that I dislike the flag. What's wrong with using the regional flag? Also, let me make sure I understand, but everyone is a dual-citizen of their country and the Esamir Government?

    I suppose war is an option and it would spice up RP, but I am not sure we are developed enough handle every new nation having to go to war right now. I understand that this plan most likely will not solve our map issues in the long run, but it will give some protection until we can figure something out. Whether that be war or adding another map as the other side of the world. In the event the reserved areas do fill, the issue of expansion periods would solve itself as it would be impossible to expand.

    The flag differentiation is to show a difference between the ECT and the region it governs. Having the same flag may symbolize that the two are one in the same when, as of this resolution, the two are separate entities.
    The ECT can be considered the RP manifestation of The Designer, a pseudo-state that behaves similarly to the District of Columbia in that it can have its own laws, but no voting power in the regional legislature.
    Yes, everyone is a dual citizen of their home nation and the ECT.
    avatar
    Duresia
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 146
    Join date : 2014-08-05
    Age : 23
    Location : Göteborg, Sweden

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Duresia on Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:36 am

    Kaevi wrote:
    Europe and Asia wrote:That is still a very small amount of land for new nations. I feel we need to somehow expand the map, although how that would be done I don't know. Really, this is just a temporary solution. We'll run out eventually.

    I agree completely, but felt that taking away land from some of the more... extensive... nations would make any solution impossible to pass in the GA.

    However, we could find another map similarly styled and say it is the other side of the world. Sounds silly I know, but we wouldn't have to figure out how to piece together more land masses.

    Taking away land would simply be unfair, is it some kind of fault that I've been in the region from the start? No, therefore I shouldn't be punished for it by losing land.
    avatar
    Hunhewuguo
    Authority
    Authority

    Posts : 64
    Join date : 2014-11-04
    Location : United States

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Hunhewuguo on Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:44 am

    Kaevi wrote:
    Meigmaland wrote:For Article I, I mostly agree, except that it is a temporary solution. Once 90% of the unreserved area is used, the reserved area will be used too, and then the map will be full. Perhaps we should just do away with future expansions, and new nations can take from whatever is left. If a nation wants to expand, simply taking unclaimed land will not be an option, however, they can invade another nation (it could add to the RP).

    As for Article II, I agree, except that I dislike the flag. What's wrong with using the regional flag? Also, let me make sure I understand, but everyone is a dual-citizen of their country and the Esamir Government?

    I suppose war is an option and it would spice up RP, but I am not sure we are developed enough handle every new nation having to go to war right now. I understand that this plan most likely will not solve our map issues in the long run, but it will give some protection until we can figure something out. Whether that be war or adding another map as the other side of the world. In the event the reserved areas do fill, the issue of expansion periods would solve itself as it would be impossible to expand.

    The flag differentiation is to show a difference between the ECT and the region it governs. Having the same flag may symbolize that the two are one in the same when, as of this resolution, the two are separate entities.
    The ECT can be considered the RP manifestation of The Designer, a pseudo-state that behaves similarly to the District of Columbia in that it can have its own laws, but no voting power in the regional legislature.
    Yes, everyone is a dual citizen of their home nation and the ECT.
    Sorry, I wasn't clear. Here is what I would suggest for a solution in Art. I:

    • New nations may claim from any unclaimed land.
    • Current nations may no longer expand their territory into unclaimed land.
    • If a current nation wishes to expand their territory, they can create a war RP with another (consenting) nation.


    As for Article II, I understand. However, may I propose this flag instead?
    FLAG:
    It is based off of the "international flag of planet Earth" (http://www.flagofplanetearth.com/#intro-shift), but since Esamir has 5 continents, instead of 7, this made more sense.
    avatar
    Eurasia
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 999
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 42
    Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Eurasia on Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:58 am

    What we need is either a new regional map or to somehow expand the current one. Forcing nations to resort to war for land will just cock-block any good RP and will create a huge discrepancy where big nations just invade smaller ones.

    The proposed solution is a temporary fix. We need a way to solve this problem for the foreseeable future, and the only ways I can imagine are the above mentioned.
    avatar
    Eurasia
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 999
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 42
    Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Eurasia on Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:59 am

    Also I prefer our current flag to any of the proposed flags. No offense, but the United Earth flag is ugly and confusing.
    avatar
    Arveyres
    Ascendancy
    Ascendancy

    Posts : 338
    Join date : 2014-08-09
    Age : 19
    Location : Minnesota, USA

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Arveyres on Wed Jul 08, 2015 8:06 am

    We could possibly cancel this current expansion and stop allowing further expansions, seeing as some nations do not need to get substantially bigger (myself, Eurasia, NZ, Duresia among others).

    Expansions where 1/4 of huge nations is allowed should not be permitted to happen.
    avatar
    Hunhewuguo
    Authority
    Authority

    Posts : 64
    Join date : 2014-11-04
    Location : United States

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Hunhewuguo on Wed Jul 08, 2015 8:17 am

    Europe and Asia wrote:What we need is either a new regional map or to somehow expand the current one. Forcing nations to resort to war for land will just cock-block any good RP and will create a huge discrepancy where big nations just invade smaller ones.

    The proposed solution is a temporary fix. We need a way to solve this problem for the foreseeable future, and the only ways I can imagine are the above mentioned.
    Here's the problem as I see it:
    • We are running out of room on the map, and need more space for new nations
    • We like our current claims, and want to keep them, and not switch to a different map.
    • We like the size of our claims as they are, and by saying, "here is the other half of the map," we have essentially halved the size of everyone's claim (I know I chose my claim to approximate 61,938.448 km2).
    • Another expansion would fill the map such that new nations can't expand at all.


    Am I missing anything? So, we should definitely stop expansions. They don't do any good. But, as you said, that's temporary. How do you plan on expanding the map? And about the flag, I understand. I'll keep thinking (I like Kaevi's, it's just a bit too bright for me).
    avatar
    Kaevi
    Ascendancy
    Ascendancy

    Posts : 335
    Join date : 2014-08-04

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Kaevi on Wed Jul 08, 2015 8:22 am

    Duresia wrote:Taking away land would simply be unfair, is it some kind of fault that I've been in the region from the start? No, therefore I shouldn't be punished for it by losing land.

    No one is proposing that anyone should have their land taken away.

    Is it your fault that you have been in the region forever? No.
    What is everyone's fault, and I do mean everyone, is taking more land than they really need.
    For example, I have a sizable block of land north of the NZ mountains. Why did I claim it? Who knows. The option was available and I took it.




    [This part applies to Meigmaland's statement.]



    • I think you may have misunderstood this part, but this resolution does not require new nations to make initial claims within the reserved areas. The reserved areas are there to ensure that some new nations will have a chance to set up shop.
    • As for bullet 2, I'm afraid there is hardly any claimable land left besides the reserved areas so including this would be a moot point.
    • In the current state, declaring was is allowed and we have no limitation of conquering lands. Officially ceding land would just be part of the peace agreement. However, I would like to see what others have to say about this.




    [This part applies to Eurasia's statement mixed with Arveyres.]

    I suppose the flag idea is a little off for our purposes right now. Any mention of a flag for the ERT has been removed from the resolution.

    I have now amended the resolution to ban expansions unless approved by the GA.
    If it is preferred, I could change it to where nations considered by the map mod(s) to not be "huge" may be exempt from GA-approved expansion.
    However, I fear that some nations may take the map mod(s) to court claiming that they should not be discriminated against for being large and have a right to expand with everyone else.

    We could assign certain areas of huge nations to be up for claim using a variation of the trust territory idea. Just an idea, I don't know.

    Honestly, I feel the best solution would be to just find another map and come up for some reason as to why the other side was never inhabited.
    avatar
    Eurasia
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 999
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 42
    Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Eurasia on Wed Jul 08, 2015 8:42 am

    I dislikes loosing Map moderators to declare who is "huge" and who isn't. That's a gateway to nepotism if I ever saw one.

    Unless we can somehow expand the map (which is next to impossible considering the intricate texture of the map), we need a new one, which is unfortunate considering the history of the region is tied to the map. I am open to tier suggestions though.

    Also, I'm going to invalidate this most recent expansion. It's only adding to the problem and it isn't even a real holiday (Half the region is non-American so what's the point?)
    avatar
    Eurasia
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 999
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 42
    Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Eurasia on Wed Jul 08, 2015 8:43 am

    I dislikes loosing Map moderators to declare who is "huge" and who isn't. That's a gateway to nepotism if I ever saw one.

    Unless we can somehow expand the map (which is next to impossible considering the intricate texture of the map), we need a new one, which is unfortunate considering the history of the region is tied to the map. I am open to tier suggestions though.

    Also, I'm going to invalidate this most recent expansion. It's only adding to the problem and it isn't even a real holiday (Half the region is non-American so what's the point?)
    avatar
    Kaevi
    Ascendancy
    Ascendancy

    Posts : 335
    Join date : 2014-08-04

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Kaevi on Wed Jul 08, 2015 9:09 am

    Europe and Asia wrote:I dislikes loosing Map moderators to declare who is "huge" and who isn't. That's a gateway to nepotism if I ever saw one.

    Unless we can somehow expand the map (which is next to impossible considering the intricate texture of the map), we need a new one, which is unfortunate considering the history of the region is tied to the map. I am open to tier suggestions though.

    Also, I'm going to invalidate this most recent expansion. It's only adding to the problem and it isn't even a real holiday (Half the region is non-American so what's the point?)

    I agree that letting someone decide who is big and who isn't is not something we should delve into.

    Invalidating the last map claim and expanding the reserved areas to fill much of those areas (they are so small now b/c I was sort of guessing where map claims were made) may solve the issue for the foreseeable future.
    We really don't have that many new people who join the forums and a good number of the ones who join either leave or CTE. I will add the invalidation of the last map claim to the resolution if most are okay with this.
    Using a new map could really shake up the histories and national identities we have developed since moving here.
    avatar
    Arveyres
    Ascendancy
    Ascendancy

    Posts : 338
    Join date : 2014-08-09
    Age : 19
    Location : Minnesota, USA

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Arveyres on Wed Jul 08, 2015 9:20 am

    Kaevi wrote:
    Europe and Asia wrote:I dislikes loosing Map moderators to declare who is "huge" and who isn't. That's a gateway to nepotism if I ever saw one.

    Unless we can somehow expand the map (which is next to impossible considering the intricate texture of the map), we need a new one, which is unfortunate considering the history of the region is tied to the map. I am open to tier suggestions though.

    Also, I'm going to invalidate this most recent expansion. It's only adding to the problem and it isn't even a real holiday (Half the region is non-American so what's the point?)

    I agree that letting someone decide who is big and who isn't is not something we should delve into.

    Invalidating the last map claim and expanding the reserved areas to fill much of those areas (they are so small now b/c I was sort of guessing where map claims were made) may solve the issue for the foreseeable future.
    We really don't have that many new people who join the forums and a good number of the ones who join either leave or CTE. I will add the invalidation of the last map claim to the resolution if most are okay with this.
    Using a new map could really shake up the histories and national identities we have developed since moving here.
    Exactly why I am against using a new map. I am already tied into multiple national histories in multiple ways, and I don't want to start over having to redefine my cultures, as I assume multiple people would be against also. I could make another political boundary map (which are significantly easier to expand/extend), as I have looked for the base map that we have and it is one of a kind (from the creator) and none of his/her other maps match this scheme. Also, political maps would be easier to edit.

    Also I think it would be better to have a map moderator (Eurasia/Atanea) and a map editor (myself), so someone only has to accept/decline, and I can update the political map.
    avatar
    Arveyres
    Ascendancy
    Ascendancy

    Posts : 338
    Join date : 2014-08-09
    Age : 19
    Location : Minnesota, USA

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Arveyres on Wed Jul 08, 2015 9:37 am

    I also propose an expansion schedule 3 per year, every 4 months, and not in relation to one's national size, but a fixed amount. I also propose if the map is expanded, that people be permitted to move a fixed amount of their territory to the expanded territory, so it isn't extremely barren (perhaps the size equal to one of the Antanaresian Islands south of Planita).
    avatar
    Eurasia
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 999
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 42
    Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Eurasia on Wed Jul 08, 2015 9:46 am

    Arveyres wrote:
    Exactly why I am against using a new map. I am already tied into multiple national histories in multiple ways, and I don't want to start over having to redefine my cultures, as I assume multiple people would be against also. I could make another political boundary map (which are significantly easier to expand/extend), as I have looked for the base map that we have and it is one of a kind (from the creator) and none of his/her other maps match this scheme. Also, political maps would be easier to edit.

    Also I think it would be better to have a map moderator (Eurasia/Atanea) and a map editor (myself), so someone only has to accept/decline, and I can update the political map.

    I agree with a political map. For those of you who remember the WA, Big Fat Butt Face always had an essentially political map that he could easily add new continents too where needed. It was infinitely easier. Yes, we do loose some of the intricacy with deserts, but we could always just use colors (like Big Fat Butt Face did) to maintain a map.

    The idea of having two map moderators is fine with me, although I have no idea how Atanea will feel about this (although I'm willing to put the continuity of the region above individual needs). If you can make a political map for the region and we can expand upon it, then I would be fine with that.

    Also, on the topic of expansions, I think we should have a New Year Expansion and a Holiday Expansion. Two per year and a nation may claim a set amount (what that is I'm not sure).
    avatar
    Eurasia
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 999
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 42
    Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Eurasia on Wed Jul 08, 2015 9:47 am

    Also we've yet to decide the scope of the map.
    avatar
    Kaevi
    Ascendancy
    Ascendancy

    Posts : 335
    Join date : 2014-08-04

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Kaevi on Wed Jul 08, 2015 9:47 am

    Arveyres wrote:Exactly why I am against using a new map. I am already tied into multiple national histories in multiple ways, and I don't want to start over having to redefine my cultures, as I assume multiple people would be against also. I could make another political boundary map (which are significantly easier to expand/extend), as I have looked for the base map that we have and it is one of a kind (from the creator) and none of his/her other maps match this scheme. Also, political maps would be easier to edit.

    Also I think it would be better to have a map moderator (Eurasia/Atanea) and a map editor (myself), so someone only has to accept/decline, and I can update the political map.

    I agree that with almost a year of developing our cultures and how they relate to our lands, throwing it all out would not be good for the community.

    A political boundary map similar to one floating around a few days ago (idk who made it) could substitute the one we have now if it more or matches our existing borders.
    It would also allow us to expand further because all we would need to do is draw in new islands.

    If you (or anyone for that matter) could produce one of these political maps, I would include it in this resolution as the official map for the region.
    I could also set up sort of a "Map Commission" that would figure out the governance and methods of map making similar to the Calendar Commission.

    After seeing your most recent comment as to how expansions would be handled, this could be delegated to the Map Commission.
    ...or would you rather have it prescribed in this resolution?

    Good ideas btw
    avatar
    Eurasia
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 999
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 42
    Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Eurasia on Wed Jul 08, 2015 9:49 am

    I think a map commission would slow things (we've a lot of commissions that don't do anything).
    avatar
    Arveyres
    Ascendancy
    Ascendancy

    Posts : 338
    Join date : 2014-08-09
    Age : 19
    Location : Minnesota, USA

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Arveyres on Wed Jul 08, 2015 9:50 am

    Kaevi wrote:
    Arveyres wrote:Exactly why I am against using a new map. I am already tied into multiple national histories in multiple ways, and I don't want to start over having to redefine my cultures, as I assume multiple people would be against also. I could make another political boundary map (which are significantly easier to expand/extend), as I have looked for the base map that we have and it is one of a kind (from the creator) and none of his/her other maps match this scheme. Also, political maps would be easier to edit.

    Also I think it would be better to have a map moderator (Eurasia/Atanea) and a map editor (myself), so someone only has to accept/decline, and I can update the political map.

    I agree that with almost a year of developing our cultures and how they relate to our lands, throwing it all out would not be good for the community.

    A political boundary map similar to one floating around a few days ago (idk who made it) could substitute the one we have now if it more or matches our existing borders.
    It would also allow us to expand further because all we would need to do is draw in new islands.

    If you (or anyone for that matter) could produce one of these political maps, I would include it in this resolution as the official map for the region.
    I could also set up sort of a "Map Commission" that would figure out the governance and methods of map making similar to the Calendar Commission.

    After seeing your most recent comment as to how expansions would be handled, this could be delegated to the Map Commission.
    ...or would you rather have it prescribed in this resolution?

    Good ideas btw
    I actually made the first political map (based on this latest map) and never updated it since.

    I agree, expansions should be delegated to the Map Commission.
    avatar
    Arveyres
    Ascendancy
    Ascendancy

    Posts : 338
    Join date : 2014-08-09
    Age : 19
    Location : Minnesota, USA

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Arveyres on Wed Jul 08, 2015 9:52 am

    Europe and Asia wrote:I think a map commission would slow things (we've a lot of commissions that don't do anything).
    I assume it would just be the map moderators and the map editor, not some grandiose commission that requires elections. Just appointed people entrusted with the duties of fixing the map.
    avatar
    Eurasia
    Supremacy
    Supremacy

    Posts : 999
    Join date : 2014-08-03
    Age : 42
    Location : Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Eurasia on Wed Jul 08, 2015 9:54 am

    Arveyres wrote:
    Europe and Asia wrote:I think a map commission would slow things (we've a lot of commissions that don't do anything).
    I assume it would just be the map moderators and the map editor, not some grandiose commission that requires elections. Just appointed people entrusted with the duties of fixing the map.

    If it is only made up of the aforementioned three (or two) then I am fine with it, but I understood the meaning of Map Commission to be an elected commission (Kaevi referenced the Calendar Commission, I think).

    Sponsored content

    Re: (P(I))Map System Reform and Regional Capital Operational Resolution

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:44 pm