|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2008 7:59:45 GMT -6
And I contend that whether we give them the choice or we dictate which province you take up residence in, we will still be left with inactive provinces. So one province is pretty active, what do we do? We shut it off to new immigrants and assign them to inactive provinces. Has the system made the provinces any more active? I contend that if each province were at least somewhat active they would each take on a unique flavor that would entice new citizens.
We cannot legislate active participation. We CAN pass legislation that is conducive to that active participation, but we cannot think that any bill, set of bills or amendment in and of itself will magically make the provinces more active.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on May 11, 2008 23:36:54 GMT -6
I agree with Senator Davis. Provinces should be fundamentally geographical entities, as they are in any other country, and we should try to make them centres of offline community. Because Talossa is more than just some internet forum.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2008 7:01:16 GMT -6
Then again, Talossa isn't just like any other country....
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on May 12, 2008 8:16:35 GMT -6
Then again, Talossa isn't just like any other country.... True, but "province" means a territorial unit. We're not just like any other country, but we do claim to be a country. And using common terms like province in a way that no other country does, contrary to their well-established meanings, just makes Talossa look fake. If we decide that provinces don't work for Talossa and clubs based on common interests would be more useful, let's just abolish the provinces rather than call the clubs "provinces."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2008 19:02:18 GMT -6
Talossa's very immigration practices transcend geographic limitations. The skeptic would argue that our entire nation is a "club" regardless of how we assign our citizens to provinces. If a person moves to America, they are free to choose which state and city they reside in. Perhaps they like the multicultural flair of New York, or they prefer the flashy California lifestyle, or perhaps a town of 500 in the middle of Wisconsin suits their needs best. This freedom to choose domicile is a basic freedom in any "real" country.
Allowing citizens to move between provinces based upon how much they like them isn't taking away from the territory. Indeed, the territorial claims of each province are actually a relatively small area. We do, however, group citizens who reside in specific areas into provinces based upon existing legislation. That doesn't mean they are part of our territory. Are we to understand that Talossa has, by virtue of existing legislation, laid claim to the lands of Italy, San Marino and all of Europe? No, but citizens from there are assigned to our provinces accordingly.
So how exactly would we be using a term like Province in ways no other country does? They would have a specified geographic territory, in the case of Benito, the Wisconsin counties of Waukesha, Jefferson, and Dane. If you live in those counties, you are undeniably a citizen of Benito and can only switch provinces if you move. If you live outside of those counties (which most of us do) then us randomly attaching you to that province will not bring you any closer to your fellow members of Benito, no matter how close geographically we think you are. Allow people to choose, that is a basic freedom of a country.
|
|