|
 |
|
|
|
Anyone remember reading this?
| QUOTE | How to Expand / Conquer Existing Land:
To prevent excess land being taken on the Regional Map by anyone, The following guidelines should be followed before a Nation acquires new land via expansion or colonization through a puppet.
a ) If Expansion is un-oppossed, an approved RP will be required detailing the discovery, acquisition and future usage of the new lands; Before the land will be granted.
b ) If Expansion is opposed, Both sides will have to prevent their case to the council who will make a decision, at which point, an approved RP will be required detailing the discovery, acquisition and future usage of the new lands; Before the land will be granted. |
To prevent excess land being taken on the Regional Map by anyone is exactly what we're doing. I, of course, stress 'we' as I'm as guilty of this as anyone. Now, although it does produce the occasional few posts, or even a - god forbid - whole RP, there's very little point in them besides patting ourselves on the back for being uber-excellent enough to conquer some un-inhabited land on a map somewhere.
The thing that annoys me most is relatively-new entrants to the region expanding into the empty lands next to them for no other reason than they feel like it. Perhaps they've just seen a larger, more-entrenched naiton do it so they want to get a piece of the action too.
The problem with this is that we'll soon end up with no free land for anyone new. Now, I'm more than willing to give up my half of Legalese for such a nation, as we can have some sort of rebellion, for instance, but how many others are willing to do that with a bit of their land?
For myself, I want Aquiliana for two reasons. 1) As previously stated, its the exact same shape as a map i made of Starblaydia before I moved to AO, and 2) I have major, major plans for it after an RP in NS finishes. My Nemyan expansion was because I had a tiny nation in the middle of nowehere next to a neighbour who'd disappeared, and the Legalese expanison was because a friend and neighbour ceased. There's still scope for a post-WW2 Berlin-type RP background with myself and TLC as we share Legalese's Captial City, but other than that (and a wrestler) it adds nothing to my nation's background.
Whether its Fmj, Lamoni, HC, Khazaron, Nova Roma or even myself, this expansion bandwagon is getting tedious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
, |
 |
|
|
|
|
I understand the problems you adress and support it. As I have claimed spot 18 for Nyssa, I suggest we split that (upper-average) large spot into two or three new pieces and I RP for the eastern part... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
|
Land 18 is absolutely enormous and should be split into at least fouur parts, imho. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, it started off as Star wanting Aquiliana and myself going after 12. Nova Roma managed to get a say in the expansion before the whole thing just blew to 3 more people. Let's just try to finish one major expansion before we get ourselves in yet another expansion. The AO map will be changing almost as fast as Joan Rivers' face (Now that'll be a halloween nightmare for ya). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
Well, I think Starblaydia has right - we have to split RP and technical/administrative things. It doesn't make sence if 3 or 4 nations soak up the whole land until there's nothing left for new nations or puppets.
so Starblaydia, see the Nyssa-Thread and negotiate with me ;-) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
| QUOTE (Hockey Canada @ Oct 17 2005, 03:12 PM) | | Actually, it started off as Star wanting Aquiliana and myself going after 12. Nova Roma managed to get a say in the expansion before the whole thing just blew to 3 more people. Let's just try to finish one major expansion before we get ourselves in yet another expansion. |
Either you're missing my point or I'm missing yours. You're one of the people I have in mind when I'm taking about nations who have been here about 5 minutes and decide they want more land through expansion. Yourself and Oliverry going for South Osettia, for instance, before switching tack and you going for 12 and Oliverry getting bored and shutting up, it seems.
My point is that we're taking the land for no particular reason, using it up so when anyone else comes here, their choices for map space are diminished.
I propose we change the rules to make expansions a helluva lot more difficult to do. Increase the RP requirements, get a %age vote from AO, perhaps. Something like that. Any ideas? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
Since expansion (usually) means to take land utilizing military action, which means that the expanding nation is either an agressor or occupation power, the international community (regional council) must legitimate the new situation.
Means in fact: We could define rules, when it is legal to occupy land outside a nations recognized borders. Taking a ceased nation's land would definately be not a such.
Unassigned land should be managed by either the UN (probably represented by the regional council --> blue helmets) or temporary by a protection power with an official legitimation given by the regional council. The land must be released (given soverneity) as soon a new state claims it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
Sounds good to me Star, the whole voting thing. Perhaps put a minimum requirement on how long the RPs for the land can be. Make it as sort of a measure to encourage good, long RPs, rather than a quick one.
In regards to Khazaron, provided that I am found worthy to expand into the general area that was occupied by the UKRAR, I probably wont expand again for a long, long time, if ever. Anywho, in the words of the great philosopher Dennis Miller, "That's just my opinion, I could be wrong." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
I think a minimum length requirement would be easy to get round, but saying 'you can only expand if you hit so-many posts or so-many words' doesn't quite fit around NS and free-form RP and such.
I think the best system could be:
- 1. Nation puts up an OOC Poll thread asking for their expansion
- 2) People vote, based on either IC or OOC reasons (but not both, hopefully)
- 3) If approved, the nation begins an RP - hopefully interactive but story is acceptable
- 4) Map gets updated
Now, as for 2) - Voting for IC reasons means no-one in the SDL or SAAS would be able to expand becuase of block-voting. This may, of course, be a good thing. So OOC reasons might be best, but then again if someone turns you down OOCly that may cause some undue friction between users.
I think Latao has the right idea about it:
| QUOTE | Since expansion (usually) means to take land utilizing military action, which means that the expanding nation is either an agressor or occupation power, the international community (regional council) must legitimate the new situation.
Means in fact: We could define rules, when it is legal to occupy land outside a nations recognized borders. Taking a ceased nation's land would definately be not a such.
Unassigned land should be managed by either the UN (probably represented by the regional council --> blue helmets) or temporary by a protection power with an official legitimation given by the regional council. The land must be released (given soverneity) as soon a new state claims it. |
'When it is legal' could mean, of course something along the lines of 'i have 3 billion people in a bit of land with all the area of a medium-sized stamp', or it can be worked into larger RPs.
Perhaps some kind of Expansion Committee/Council or something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, an expansion council would be able to fairly distribute AO lands to all those nations that wish to settle here. I think that it would be best if we added it into the regional charter (requiring a 2/3rds vote to put their responsibilities and whatnot into the charter), which would give it more credibility. The problem is in deciding who the council will consist of. |
 |
 |
|
Lamoni |
|
Democratic Maniac |
 |
|
|
|
Posts: 1952 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
I am in complete agreeance with the issue that has been presented but...
Is it completely neccesary to create a regional council to govern which nations are permitted to expand, and when and where they are permitted to do so? I think not. Why not allow the region as a whole to vote?
I think it would be much better to allow the voting to approve or disapprove of expansion be left to the region as a whole. With certain strict requirements of course...
For example: If I wanted to expand my border South into plot 18, I would be required to create a thread in the Region Discussions board. And within this thread, I would roleplay my IC reasons for wanting to expand as well as explain my OOC reasons for expansion and what my plans etc are for the land. And after reading my post(s), the region as a whole would vote to allow or disallow the expansion. Now, if I were to create a very long and well written story as my IC reasons, it wouldn't be quite right to "erase" what has happened within Nojika, so Lamoni, who voted against my expansion would also have to roleplay how they are going to attempt to stop Nojika from expanding (assuming there were IC reasons). But because Starblaydia and Nova Roma, the only other two nations who voted (and majority counts), voted to allow Nojika's expansion, Lamoni's IC attempts to stop Nojika would knowingly fail...
I'm pretty sure that that did not come across very clear or understandable, but my point is this; we as a region could easily create new requirements for expansion and enforce them just as easy as they were made. If my example (or some version of it) wre used as a template for the expansion requirements, I think that there would be a lot more good roleplays and would keep the region involved as opposed to the few people who would be on a council and make major decisions without any roleplay -- which is what, I thought, this region and Nationstates is all about.
Comments, questions, clarifications anyone? Note that I'm not saying a council wouldn't work, I just think that there are other options that were quickly overlooked.
This post has been edited by Nojika on Oct 18 2005, 09:00 AM |
|
|
 |
|
Nojika |
|
Senator in Training |
|
|
|
|
|
Posts: 214 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
With IC objections, though, we could end up with an AO version of the Korean and Vietnam wars every week. Now, one of those every so often might be quite interesting, but there's only so far that IC objections can go. With the SDL and SAAS as prone to sabre rattling as they/we are, I can see it getting out of hand (ICly) very quickly.
So, for any future expansions (as we surely can't do this retrospectively) the following type of thread is required:
| QUOTE ("Nation A requests to move in to Land X") |
IC:
Too many people not enough land (and lots of other paragraphs)
OOC:
I want a new place to start a new fundamentalist Ahmish province in my nation, with all sorts of fallout from repressing out hardy ahmish folks. |
A poll is attached to this, too, where y'all can vote. Plus people should reply of course. One the poll is a clear 'yes' or 'no', then the real RPing an aquisition can begin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
Ahh, a good laugh., Ahmish country, Ahh, a good laugh.. Dangit Star, now I lost my train of thought!  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
I'm just expanding south so I can get a piece of Bekk and border with Star. After that I'll be put for quite some time. But I cannot be blamed for not RPing while expanding, Oliverry and I were going to have something good come out of the SO thread but he obviously wanted me to look bad by making me hate those little "conferences" he had. You all turned your back away while I move south into 12 making me look bad for RPing. So if you point the finger at me remember you have 3 pointing back.
I agree with star for his voting policy. I think there should be a minimum of RPing for expanding land so that it gets recognized by other nations and tells the nation is commited. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
| QUOTE (Hockey Canada @ Oct 18 2005, 06:38 PM) | | I'm just expanding south so I can get a piece of Bekk and border with Star. After that I'll be put for quite some time. But I cannot be blamed for not RPing while expanding <snip>You all turned your back away while I move south into 12 making me look bad for RPing. So if you point the finger at me remember you have 3 pointing back. |
Um, and that rant about RPing your expansion was brought on by what, exactly?
The question still remains about the usage of land though. 12, for instance would make a nice little plot for a new nation, but no longer. I suggest we divide 18 up into at least 4, maybe even 6 or more rather small chunks. There we can make some more room for new nations, and if any larger (multi-billion) nations come along they can take a couple of those land spots. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
Track this topic
Receive email notification when a reply has been made to this topic and you are not active on the board.
Subscribe to this forum
Receive email notification when a new topic is posted in this forum and you are not active on the board.
Download / Print this Topic
Download this topic in different formats or view a printer friendly version.
[ Script Execution time: 0.0221 ] [ 12 queries used ] [ GZIP Enabled ]
|
Close Topic Options
