The Catchment Area Reform Act

[Eðo Grischun]

Mar 11, 2015 16:14:18 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Lüc's table is a very small dataset. (For Vuode we're talking about 3 citizens, thats hardly significant.)

Actually, 3 active citizens make a HUGE deal of difference for Vuode at present.

but I really think in the case of Vuode, this bill will increase the share of immigration to the province.

Any evidence or argument for that? I'm not trying to be awkward or rude, I really need hard convincing if you want my support.

I am a servant of Vuode and must act selfishly in her interests. No proven benefit for Vuode, no support from Vuode. I hope you understand my position on this.

[Eðo Grischun]

Mar 11, 2015 16:03:49 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

It makes very much sense for Cézembre not to have a US catchment area.

Why?

If you're trying to create provinces with some kind of shared identity, surely there are swathes of US citizens who would contribute to Cezembre in a positive way in reaching your goal.


What of European ex-pats living in the US?

What of 2nd or 3rd (or more) generation immigrants to the US? Italians from New York? Irish from Boston?

The arbitrary line drawing based on the world's borders make no sense at all to me and really don't make any sense for Talossa.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Mar 11, 2015 16:30:12 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

Mar 11, 2015 16:14:18 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Lüc's table is a very small dataset. (For Vuode we're talking about 3 citizens, thats hardly significant.)

Actually, 3 active citizens make a HUGE deal of difference for Vuode at present.

That's true of course, but as a statistical predictor for future immigration looking at such a short period of immigration doesnt tell us much.

but I really think in the case of Vuode, this bill will increase the share of immigration to the province.

Any evidence or argument for that? I'm not trying to be awkward or rude, I really need hard convincing if you want my support.

I am a servant of Vuode and must act selfishly in her interests. No proven benefit for Vuode, no support from Vuode. I hope you understand my position on this.

Of course, I fully understand. Im not the sponsor of this bill of course, Im also just trying to look critical at it. But the evidence, is in the tables I posted. Vuode gets a large part of the Benitan US catchment areas. As a result of this, the number of citizens living in the Vuodean catchment area increases from 13 to 28. Thats more than double. And looking at a more recent period, which may be a better indicator of future immigration (2010 - present) from 9 to 20. Again, more than double.

(Thats just the current proposal of course, looking at the stats for Ataturk I doubt its going to be the final proposal.)

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Mar 11, 2015 16:23:55 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

Mar 11, 2015 16:03:49 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Ireland (5 citizens), Scotland (4) and Wales (3) going to Cézembre

Explain the reasoning behind this, because I'm struggling with it.

Is this down to some 'celtic connection'? If so, it's not going to achieve whatever you think it will achieve. If it's to try and connect people together in a shared culture kind of way then this shows a complete misunderstanding of modern regional cultures and politics. The majority of Scottish people have more in common with English folks from Cumberland and Newcastle regions than with folks from Cardiff or Dublin. Even then, the majority of Glaswegians have more in common with people from Cardiff than with Edinburgh!

England is already part of Cézembre's area. This reform puts all the British Isles back together in Cézembre's area, as was the case for several years. The Celtic nations were split off from Cézembre and assigned to Atatürk in 2003 as part of a punitive action by Ben to dismember Cézembre's catchment area.

[Eðo Grischun]

Sorry, I missed your post with the tables amidst my quoting and posting. Let me look over that data for a few.

[Eðo Grischun]

Mar 11, 2015 16:44:31 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Mar 11, 2015 16:23:55 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

Explain the reasoning behind this, because I'm struggling with it.

Is this down to some 'celtic connection'? If so, it's not going to achieve whatever you think it will achieve. If it's to try and connect people together in a shared culture kind of way then this shows a complete misunderstanding of modern regional cultures and politics. The majority of Scottish people have more in common with English folks from Cumberland and Newcastle regions than with folks from Cardiff or Dublin. Even then, the majority of Glaswegians have more in common with people from Cardiff than with Edinburgh!

England is already part of Cézembre's area. This reform puts all the British Isles back together in Cézembre's area, as was the case for several years. The Celtic nations were split off from Cézembre and assigned to Atatürk in 2003 as part of a punitive action by Ben to dismember Cézembre's catchment area.

Ah, I think I actually used to know that, but forgot. Something to do with T. Garceir?


Even though, I stand by my argument. I don't see how lumping "world" regions together is the best course of action for Talossa. The only supporting argument ever given is something to do with being able to hold "living" or "IRL" events ... which provincial disparity does NOT limit.

Sorry, I might hold the minority viewpoint here, but coming from the experience of Vuode's long standing activity issues, I believe the answer lies in having the provinces have a roughly equal immigration rate from all sources and ignore the whole 'your from here so you go to x' approach.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

I wonder how it would work if we started assigning new citizens not to provinces based on geography but in some sort of order. For example: The first citizen goes to Maricopa, the next to Vuode, the next to Cezembre, the next to Fiova, etc. and then it just repeats once each province has gotten a new citizen. I'm with Edo on this in some respects. Our division of the world seems arbitrary in some instances and some make little sense (like my example with Brazil being part of FIova but the rest of South America is Maricopa). I know that when reunision occurred, a few things were tweaked, but do we really have to keep all the republicans together? Maybe Maricopa would benefit from a republican or two...or Vuode, or Florencia.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Mar 11, 2015 15:51:29 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

So, Ive tried my best to find out the location of everyone to produce the following statistics

Current citizens	Assigned to:	Living in catchment area:	Living in proposed* catchment area:
Atatürk	29	29**	12
Benito	34	38	20
Cézembre	29	35	46
Fiova	25	17	22
Florencia	23	27	35
Maricopa	39	37	33
MM	30	30	30
Vuode	17	13	28

Citizens immigrated 2010-Present	Assigned to:	Living in catchment area:	Living in proposed* catchment area:
Atatürk	15	15	4
Benito	25	28	14
Cézembre	20	23	30
Fiova	11	11	19
Florencia	8	10	13
Maricopa	31	27	22
MM	21	20	21
Vuode	12	9	20

* Brazil still in Fiova
** The numbers may in some cases but that doesnt mean these are the same people. For each province there are quite a few people wrongly assigned.

Maybe I'm reading this table wrong, but I have a big problem with one province having 46 citizens in the proposed catchment area and another having only 12. If our Ziu ever went proportional based on citizens, that would mean Cezembre would have a huge advantage over poor little Ataturk or Benito.

[Eðo Grischun]

Mar 11, 2015 17:04:06 GMT -6 Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă said:

I wonder how it would work if we started assigning new citizens not to provinces based on geography but in some sort of order. For example: The first citizen goes to Maricopa, the next to Vuode, the next to Cezembre, the next to Fiova, etc. and then it just repeats once each province has gotten a new citizen. I'm with Edo on this in some respects. Our division of the world seems arbitrary in some instances and some make little sense (like my example with Brazil being part of FIova but the rest of South America is Maricopa). I know that when reunision occurred, a few things were tweaked, but do we really have to keep all the republicans together? Maybe Maricopa would benefit from a republican or two...or Vuode, or Florencia.

This is what I'm getting at. I hadn't thought it all the way to "Maybe Maricopa would benefit from a republican or two", but yes. This is my point with the Cezembre thing. Maybe Cezembre benefits from having a few Americans.


I guess, something else that affects my view on this is my own situation. I shouldn't even be Vuodean. Historically I'm 'supposed' to be Cezembrean. When I immigrated I was supposed to be an Ataturkey. By a freak mathematical accident I ended up in Vuode.

Anyone want to argue that Vuode would have been better off with or without me? LOL!

[Glüc da Dhi]

I would certainly argue that Cézembre would have been better off with you

[Eðo Grischun]

Mar 11, 2015 17:15:00 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

I would certainly argue that Cézembre would have been better off with you

GOVERNMENT'S MASTER PLAN REVEALED!

Catchment areas redrawn to force Grischun on board! Head hunting to the max!

[Glüc da Dhi]

Some proposed changes:

Ireland, Malta > Benito
Russia, Mongolia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Russia (), Ukraine, Belarus > Atatürk
Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria, Cyprus > Atatürk
Brazil stays with Fiova

Result:

Current citizens	Assigned to:	Living in catchment area:	Living in proposed* catchment area:
Atatürk	29	29**	21 (+9)
Benito	34	38	21 (+1)
Cézembre	29	35	36 (-10)
Fiova	25	17	22
Florencia	23	27	35
Maricopa	39	37	33
MM	30	30	30
Vuode	17	13	28

Compare current catchment areas:
13, 17, 27, 29, 30, 35, 37, 38
with proposed catchment areas:
21, 21, 22, 28, 30, 33, 35, 36

And its clear that such a proposal would both make provinces more geographically consistent and would predict a more equal flow of immigrants to the provinces, even though Eovart might find the first criterium not as important while I might find the latter not as important, we can both be happy.


That said, I do believe a clause should be added to remove the closed provinces rule. Its not good that if two people who live in the same street, who know each other immigrate to Talossa, they might end up in different provinces because one province has become to big.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Mar 11, 2015 17:10:41 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

Mar 11, 2015 17:04:06 GMT -6 Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă said:

I wonder how it would work if we started assigning new citizens not to provinces based on geography but in some sort of order. For example: The first citizen goes to Maricopa, the next to Vuode, the next to Cezembre, the next to Fiova, etc. and then it just repeats once each province has gotten a new citizen. I'm with Edo on this in some respects. Our division of the world seems arbitrary in some instances and some make little sense (like my example with Brazil being part of FIova but the rest of South America is Maricopa). I know that when reunision occurred, a few things were tweaked, but do we really have to keep all the republicans together? Maybe Maricopa would benefit from a republican or two...or Vuode, or Florencia.

This is what I'm getting at. I hadn't thought it all the way to "Maybe Maricopa would benefit from a republican or two", but yes. This is my point with the Cezembre thing. Maybe Cezembre benefits from having a few Americans.


I guess, something else that affects my view on this is my own situation. I shouldn't even be Vuodean. Historically I'm 'supposed' to be Cezembrean. When I immigrated I was supposed to be an Ataturkey. By a freak mathematical accident I ended up in Vuode.

I don't think provinces should be just senatorial voting clubs. If they were completely random, whats the point? All provinces would be almost the same. Honestly, we might as well abolish them. I support real provinces, with an identity.

Making this purely a result of choice or ideology (A republican province or a Christian province or province of football fans or something like that) would have the opposite effect: provinces may be different, but within the province there would not be any diversity. Dont think that is a good idea either. Fiova was neccesary to achieve reunision, but in the future I think we'd all like to see republicans in other provinces and monarchists in Fiova.

Id much rather provinces mirror real geography: not everyone is the same, there is conflict of ideas, of lifestyles, etc, but its not completely random either. Added positive effect is that people who live in the same side of the world, who might meet up for a Talossa related event for example, are much more likely to live in the same province.

[Eðo Grischun]

I don't think provinces should be just senatorial voting clubs. If they were completely random, whats the point? All provinces would be almost the same. Honestly, we might as well abolish them. I support real provinces, with an identity.

It's quite a leap, and quite a disingenuous one, to say provinces would just end up Senatorial voting clubs and nothing more. Tell me, do they sort people into 'voting zones' in the Netherlands to create uniquely identifiable zones? They used to call similar measure segregation. When you say you support real provinces, with an identity, I say I support real provinces with diversity. If the eight provinces end up homogeneous melting pots, well, I say good. I think it's more important for Talossa to have 8 active and functioning provinces with a mix of identities (even if they do end up fairly similar in demographic cross section) than have an active Euro-province, an active American Province and near dead Chinese and African Provinces.

Added positive effect is that people who live in the same side of the world, who might meet up for a Talossa related event for example, are much more likely to live in the same province.

I've already spoke on this. It's not as if I wont't attend an event in London with all the British Cezembreans just because I'm Vuodean and it's not like they will not invite me in the first place for the same. Anything to the contrary is an imaginary argument. A fallacy. We would all get together because we hold the shared identity and interest in being Talossan. I really do not understand the argument that real world get-togethers have anything to do with provincial assignment.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Would the sponsor be open to a change that made this an Organic amendment? It occurs to me that this would be a good time to just reassign Cézembre's territory and citizens to Maritiimi-Maxhestic. This would have a number of benefits:
-It would benefit Cézembreans, who are not currently permitted to be citizens of Maritiimi-Maxhestic.
-It would benefit Maritiimi-Maxhestic, which is in the uncomfortable position of having its overseas possession being all independent-like.
-It would benefit the nation, which would get to see justice done.