Passed | Observer Land Rights Ammendment

This is pretty simple really. This proposal would change the charter by altering the following section concerning Land Rights for observers (changes in bold):

v. Observatory Members shall have the opportunity to select a parcel of land on Adonia, if they so choose. This parcel of land shall not be larger in area than the smallest ambassadorial member.

To me this makes a lot of sense, and is only fair. Adonia is designer to allow roleplay between USNW members. Observatory members are not willing to completely commit to being in USNW, and thus should be restricted in the amount of land they can have because they not only don't contribute as much to roleplay, but if they are large could take land that new members willing to make USNW their primary union may want. There needs to be a restriction in my opinion, I'm not sure, however, that the one I have proposed is the best, and I welcome discussion of alternatives.

My only problem is if we have members with nations the size of Secylia or Torshia.

For the same reason K50 brought up, I can agree with the idea, but I cannot agree with the wording.

I'm not so sure. The world map is made up of numerous countries already. Restricting the amount of land an Observer can acquire only splits up nations into smaller nations, thus increasing the count. And I'm not one for a planet of hundreds and hundreds of different banners.

I say don't worry about it. An Observer can still choose a pretty large sized Nation. It's the practices that matter, like what that nation can do toward the Union. Country size shouldn't matter.

I agree with what Mike said; also, there may be a few "special" Observatory cases - such as Kurt - who are de facto fully committed to the Union, but who can't leave their current union (AIN) because of a risk of spoiling relations between us. Since interunion relations have finally started to warm up in the past few days, I think Observatory land area should rather be based on how much each of them, as an induvidual, contribute to the union rather than making a hard-and-fast rule for all Observers.

I have to both agree on Dan and Mike.

Daniel wrote:but who can't leave their current union (AIN) because of a risk of spoiling relations between us.

We have relations with AIN now?

yes we do K50 xDxD

K50 wrote:

Daniel wrote:but who can't leave their current union (AIN) because of a risk of spoiling relations between us.

We have relations with AIN now?

Currently unofficial, but recent talks between JJ and me have indicated that there's a possibility of it going official in the near future.

Daniel wrote:

K50 wrote:

Daniel wrote:but who can't leave their current union (AIN) because of a risk of spoiling relations between us.

We have relations with AIN now?

Currently unofficial, but recent talks between JJ and me have indicated that there's a possibility of it going official in the near future.

Talking with JJ doesn't do anything.

Daniel, welcome to the world of AIN politics.

Dem peeps over at AIN got somethin' up their butt puckers huh?
(totally not a bad word!)

K50 wrote:

Daniel wrote:

K50 wrote:

Daniel wrote:but who can't leave their current union (AIN) because of a risk of spoiling relations between us.

We have relations with AIN now?

Currently unofficial, but recent talks between JJ and me have indicated that there's a possibility of it going official in the near future.

Talking with JJ doesn't do anything.

Daniel, welcome to the world of AIN politics.

If planning and organizing an interunion event to take place this July doesn't constitute a major improvement in relations, I don't know what does.

Daniel wrote:

K50 wrote:

Daniel wrote:

K50 wrote:

Daniel wrote:but who can't leave their current union (AIN) because of a risk of spoiling relations between us.

We have relations with AIN now?

Currently unofficial, but recent talks between JJ and me have indicated that there's a possibility of it going official in the near future.

Talking with JJ doesn't do anything.

Daniel, welcome to the world of AIN politics.

If planning and organizing an interunion event to take place this July doesn't constitute a major improvement in relations, I don't know what does.

That's funny because that's what I thought we did. We planned a Soccer World Cup thing that was just forgotten about.

Hopefully you two can actually pull something off. At this point I still don't understand why we want relations anyway.

I must agree with K50, we've tried stuff like this before. It takes less than nothing to ruin relations with AIN, many of their members watch like hawks to find stuff to break the relations with. Also, I can't really understand what benefits you will get from having these relations.

I'm not telling you you can't do this, or anything like that, but if anybody knows about AIN relations, it's K50 and I. We have tried multiple times to have official relations with them, it never gets anywhere. One person, doesn't matter which union, always breaks the relations. This is only a warning, all I ask is for you to heed it when continuing your relations with them.

Chip

I'd say put this to a vote now. Or do we need posted opinions from all the voters first?

I too agree with K50 & Chip. Why do we need relations with them and also why do we have to be the ones that must confine to them? If the AIN wants relations they will find a way to work with us. That's just my opinion. I think this proposal is legitimate.

This discussion is getting a big off topic. If there's going to be a talk about the AIN, it should have it's own topic.

BUMP!

Also, I don't think there needs to be technicalities like having to choose a country smaller than the smallest Ambassador, cause what if an Ambassador chooses a really small country? I'd say just word it so they just have to choose "A small scale nation in regards to it's size on the world." People can differentiate between what's big and what's small. For example, Folland is big, Sk'uuyat is small.

Haha, what if the ambassador picked a country the size of the Vatican. LOL

Yeah I agree with Mike.

Ordanus phase 2 was approximately 22 km2 in size I believe... If I hadn't changed to Asgard then most Observer nations would need to be small island nations or nations the size of a large city.

I think the idea is a good one, and I suggest that the cartographic committee should have the final say, as that is what it was set up to do originally. The members were voted on and selected as responsible members of the community entrusted to do what was best for the union. That included discussions with new applicants as to the location of their nation and size, and offered suggestions or alternatives to make sure they were located in the right location for their style and didn't impede on protected NPCs and to a make clear about size of a nation if they were an observer and the amount of work, effort and activity they had to bring to be a large nation.

I don't know. Shall it? It's been a month.

If Jon doesn't want to withdraw then I'll move it to the voting chamber.

Moved to the Voting Chamber and Poll Started.

Voooooted.

Veeeetod, needs more deliberation I think, like how large a land they can get, cause the smallest won't work is Grand and Belluterra is the smallest.

But anyways, Abstain still x3 needs deliberating more.