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 Sept 16, 2014 18:09:02 GMT -6
I'd like to restart discussion on this bill (I'm proposing it as a senator now). I've changed 7.3.2 so internal zone moves only count for long distance. It now says 1000 km or across national borders but that could be changed if there are better suggestions. I'd like to hear what others think about the 1000 km rule, but I'm inclined to support this.
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Sept 16, 2014 20:31:13 GMT -6
Honestly, as per my 2 bence, I would rather see active than "real" provinces, and that may be better served by facilitating provincial choice as opposed to geographic catchment. After all, looking at maps, what sense does it make to tie Tennessee to Azerbaijan? Geographical catchment, though it may seem like something "real" nations do is unworkable in the Talossan context. It is a sort of "bad faith" derivitism.
I agree that the provincial system needs a shot in the arm, but am really not sure this is it.
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Sept 17, 2014 1:08:33 GMT -6
Honestly, as per my 2 bence, I would rather see active than "real" provinces, and that may be better served by facilitating provincial choice as opposed to geographic catchment. After all, looking at maps, what sense does it make to tie Tennessee to Azerbaijan? Geographical catchment, though it may seem like something "real" nations do is unworkable in the Talossan context. It is a sort of "bad faith" derivitism. I agree that the provincial system needs a shot in the arm, but am really not sure this is it. In that case you should work to abolish provinces and replace them with something else. I'm a Talossan because it's "real". If I just wanted a web community that prioritises "workable" there was no shortage to choose from.
|
|
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 Sept 17, 2014 3:03:32 GMT -6
After all, looking at maps, what sense does it make to tie Tennessee to Azerbaijan? Is that a trick question? It wouldn't make any sense to tie them, but they're in different catchment areas (Tennessee belongs to Maritiimi-Maxhestic and Azerbaijan to Atatürk). Point taken, though, because similarly odd examples can be found (Atatürk having Azerbaijan but also Cornwall, Rhode Island, and Canada). But having geographically-based provinces doesn't necessarily mean having bizarrely splintered catchment areas for the provinces. Things can be cleaned up. In my opinion, most of the weirdness in the system can be traced to three things: 1) a handful of vanity assignments made via 25RZ113 in 1999, 2) pandering made to win votes for the dismantling of Cézembre's catchment area via 31RZ28 in 2003, and 3) the creation of Fiova's catchment area in 2012.
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Sept 17, 2014 4:26:48 GMT -6
Honestly, as per my 2 bence, I would rather see active than "real" provinces, and that may be better served by facilitating provincial choice as opposed to geographic catchment. After all, looking at maps, what sense does it make to tie Tennessee to Azerbaijan? Geographical catchment, though it may seem like something "real" nations do is unworkable in the Talossan context. It is a sort of "bad faith" derivitism. I agree that the provincial system needs a shot in the arm, but am really not sure this is it. In that case you should work to abolish provinces and replace them with something else. I'm a Talossan because it's "real". If I just wanted a web community that prioritises "workable" there was no shortage to choose from. But the current provincial system isn't any more real than allowing a person to choose where they are. If real is what is desired, then provincial catchment should only have one map, a world one, and we should accept everything that goes with that (depopulated provinces, lopsided population distribution, etc).
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Sept 17, 2014 4:58:22 GMT -6
Which I am fully prepared to do. I see the current proposal as the first step.
|
|
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 Sept 17, 2014 8:11:46 GMT -6
If real is what is desired, then provincial catchment should only have one map, a world one, and we should accept everything that goes with that (depopulated provinces, lopsided population distribution, etc). Not sure what you mean about "one map." There is no official map. The catchment areas are defined by words in a statute. It is possible to represent the catchment areas using one map or several (though if you use one map it'd have to be a pretty big one to show the requisite level of detail). If you mean that catchment area boundaries should follow only national borders (e.g. so all of the United States are assigned to a single province), I don't see why that should be a criterion for realism. I also don't see why the boundaries of catchment areas should not be able to change from time to time. I would probably prefer occasional adjustment of catchment areas over "closing" provinces to immigration.
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Sept 17, 2014 9:05:26 GMT -6
If we are defining provinces by geographical proximity, as real nations do, then have catchment which are distributed across Wisconsin, then the US, and then the World, makes no real sense. As per current catchment, Azerbaijan, Cornwall, and Rhode Island, all fall under Ataturk for no reason aside from the fact that the maps were drawn that way. If "real" is the goal, then catchment lines should run along national or regional borders, pure and simple. Things that are near each other is how we define provinces in terms of real nations.
Just my two bence, anyway. I think provincial choice would allow for more active and vibrant provincial life in the long run and that geographical determinism will wind up siphoning citizens into 2-3 provinces (the bulk being wherever the US and Europe are placed) and others simply withering on the vine.
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Sept 17, 2014 9:41:23 GMT -6
If we are defining provinces by geographical proximity, as real nations do, then have catchment which are distributed across Wisconsin, then the US, and then the World, makes no real sense. As per current catchment, Azerbaijan, Cornwall, and Rhode Island, all fall under Ataturk for no reason aside from the fact that the maps were drawn that way. If "real" is the goal, then catchment lines should run along national or regional borders, pure and simple. Things that are near each other is how we define provinces in terms of real nations. Just my two bence, anyway. I think provincial choice would allow for more active and vibrant provincial life in the long run and that geographical determinism will wind up siphoning citizens into 2-3 provinces (the bulk being wherever the US and Europe are placed) and others simply withering on the vine. My angle is that I refuse to see Talossa as an online enterprise. I want to maximise the opportunity for US and European citizens (because Talossa is located in the US and in Europe) to actually meet each other in real life.
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Sept 17, 2014 9:45:08 GMT -6
And the way to do it is to look at current US citizens and where they live, and use that as a guideline for how to divide the catchment areas, taking into account the traditional (pre-2003) areas. That shouldn't leave 4-5 provinces "withering on the vine".
|
|
|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Sept 17, 2014 9:49:21 GMT -6
And in that I am in agreement! I think that is one of the reasons for Cezembre's (relative) success as a province is the cohesion. I just wanted to point out that such and such a thing would happen.
I think the greatest risk is if everyone winds up siphoned into one or two provinces, then provincial engagement becomes a simple mirror of national engagement... and then why bother with provinces anyhow?
Historically speaking, were there Euro Talossans before the claiming of Cezembre island? Should we consider making additional geographical claims as we spread? (Ie, should we find a desolate patch of Australia or New Zealand if we have citizen growth in that area?)
|
|
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 Sept 17, 2014 11:08:21 GMT -6
I think the traditional division of North America mostly makes sense. Basically, if you start from the physical provinces, the catchment areas extend outward from each of them through the rest of Milwaukee County, the state of Wisconsin, the rest of the US, and the rest of the continent sort of like slicing a pie. The catchment areas are more-or-less geographically contiguous. Cézembre should never have been assigned some counties of Wisconsin, but that was the only major deviation from the scheme (and as far as I know had never affected any actual provincial assignments). The difficulty comes in dealing with the rest of the world and fitting Fiova into the map.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Sept 26, 2014 16:58:46 GMT -6
Any more comments on the 1000 km rule? Any suggestions about the language? (My own feeling is that some of it may be a bit awkward. Any cosponsors? I intend to propose this for the first clark.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 27, 2014 14:12:47 GMT -6
Seems fine to me
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Sept 29, 2014 14:02:42 GMT -6
Made some minor changes to the language. Still looking for a better title.
|
|