Proposal | Territories of New Terrance

The Federal Republic of New Terrance would like the Cartographic Committee to recognize its territorial claims over Bovina and  Mintonae.

Eh, I don't agree with this. Half of my territories are disputed at this point, it's getting quit annoying. Also, Venland belonged to Etrusque, I'm not sure why most of those dependencies were removed, either. There are other islands you can claim.

Also, on a tangent. This isn't the place for this. This is IC, would need to be proposed in the International Assembly, not the Cartographic committee. This is literal changes to the maps, not role play. So, while I know it's not what you are meaning to do, in this current thread, you are pretty much asking for New Chatum to be taken from me and given to you.

Totally cool, Chip. I wasn't too worried about New Chatum. On a side note, I do not want Venland lol. But what is wrong with the islands of the Republic of Mangiloa?

Chip wrote:Eh, I don't agree with this. Half of my territories are disputed at this point, it's getting quit annoying. :PAlso, Venland belonged to Etrusque, I'm not sure why most of those dependencies were removed, either. There are other islands you can claim.

Fighting imperialism is a duty

Fairly well off nations fighting imperialism is no better than imperialism, they still gain territory, it's not like they're doing a charity act.

I should probably put Septentria's territories on the map sometime, which I'll do soon.
But I support this so far!

OO I support

PS keyboard still buggered I m sorry but try d trslte or yourself P

RepublicMaster wrote:I support the claims of Bovina and Mintonae, as well as Venland. I'm not sure about the islands. Perhaps they could be in free-association with New Terrance (kind of like protectors).

Also, if the Cart Committee is IC, what are we roleplaying?   

Cart committee is out of character, we're not roleplaying anything.

What if the Islands were a dependent or in a personal union with New Terrance?

>Folland wants to be pissy about this.
>Part of me just wants to allow it.
>Another part wants to rebel against the common opinion.
>Folland acknowledges these state's sovereignties.
>Opposes claims.
>Is grumpy.

Chip wrote:Also, on a tangent. This isn't the place for this. This is IC, would need to be proposed in the International Assembly, not the Cartographic committee.

I'm so confused.

trevy wrote:What if the Islands were a dependent or in a personal union with New Terrance?

That's like what I suggested, just with a more modern term.

RepublicMaster wrote:

Chip wrote:Also, on a tangent. This isn't the place for this. This is IC, would need to be proposed in the International Assembly, not the Cartographic committee.

I'm so confused.

Chip is saying saying that requesting New Chatum from Trentannia as part of their territorial dispute is roleplay and therefore should be handled as in-character. I agree, Trevor is basically asking the Cartographic Committee to settle the issue and just give him the territory that New Terrance wants in it's roleplay with Trentannia.

"Everyone else has islands!" I don't have territorial islands....D: But I do have island states!

Jon wrote:

RepublicMaster wrote:

Chip wrote:Also, on a tangent. This isn't the place for this. This is IC, would need to be proposed in the International Assembly, not the Cartographic committee.

I'm so confused.

He's saying that requesting New Chatum from Trentannia as part of their territorial dispute is roleplay and therefore should be handled as in-character. I agree, he's basically asking the Cartographic Committee to settle the issue and just give him the territory that New Terrance wants in it's roleplay with Trentannia.

Oh, of course. I agree.

I only have nearby islands to my mainland. I don't have far away claims.

I want Chip and Trevor to talk this through and come to an agreement before I put this to vote.  I think it's more your guys' business than mine.

Trevor and I talked and New Chatum will not be a part of this proposal, not as a territorial dispute or as a territorial transfer. His request isn't role-play and should go before the cartographic committee. I will attempt to explain what I understood Trevor wanted from our chat together the other night and also clarify a little bit on what I meant by which assembly/chamber/committee sees which requests.

Trevor wants these claims added as territory to New Terrance, in the literal sense. I believe he wants to request the formation of a archipelago with New Chatum, which I approve of, but we should wait until Trevor revises his proposal. I am unsure on whether they will be added into New Terrance by referendum or if they have been part of New Terrance for decades. The way he decides to role play it or insert them into his history is his decision. His request is much like the requests users make when they apply, they may be applying their nations in 2014 to the USN role playing community, but their nation might have been in the USN international organization (i.e. role play) in the fictional sense from the formation of the union after the GAW. Therefor his request is considered out of character (OOC).

Examples of requests that should go before the cartographic committee, an out of character, non-fictional administrative committee would include situations like this. Situations when a nation may want new land created (which obviously couldn't realistically be role played); when a nation wants their land altered or reshaped; or every time a nation wants new land incorporated into their official land. Every time refers to even situations that the user wants to role play, for example: I might want Trentannia to buy an overseas independent territory. This territory is unplayed, an NPC, and is not claimed by another role-playing nation. First, I would need for that addition to my land to be approved, OOC, by the Cart Committee. Then, and only then, would I be able to role-play that land to be added to Trentannia, fictionally. How I chose to do that, whether Trentannia buys it or invades it, or if it has been claimed before and Trentannia asks the International Assembly to recognize it is all up to me.

Also, I'd like to offer an example of a proposal that would need to go before the International Assembly, which is the role play, fictional legislative body of the USN international organization, I understand this is going to be confusing for a while. Say for example, the Trentannian delegation would like the dispute between Kuyrut and Trentannia over Brennsland to be resolved by the union, by treaty or some other means. Trentannia asks the International Assembly to recognize the nation's claim over the disputed territory. This would be role-play, and would need prior permission from the user who role plays Kuyrut (forthwall) before the user who role plays Trentannia (me) even attempts to role-play this situation. It should be coordinated between the two players in agreement. I shouldn't go before the IA without asking Forth because that would be unfair and the whole thread would have to be thrown out because it is illegitimate role play.

I hope I am making sense.

^^
I agree and it does make sense.

I am sorry, I didnt realize I was in the room with a bunch of realist who care so much about land that isn't even the size of Massachusetts (Excluding New Chatum as I have already spoken with Chip). I will restructure my proposal tomorrow afternoon. But just to reiterate what Chip so perfectly said, there is no disputed Land between NT and Trentannia. To add to his remarks I do not want an archipelago or islands anymore, just simply the two small countries to my bottom right, this does not include Venland.

Wat.
Also, your proposal makes sense, dw.

Ditto.

I'd also be fine with you creating islands closer to New Terrance.

Okay hold up partner sudden hostile vibes are unnecessary.  Calm down a little. It's obvious you're going to get this (or at least something). Some of us are just opposing (or is it just me?) for the hay of it. 

Here, have a kitteh.  

trevy wrote:I am sorry, I didnt realize I was in the room with a bunch of realist who care so much about land that isn't even the size of Massachusetts (Excluding New Chatum as I have already spoken with Chip). I will restructure my proposal tomorrow afternoon. But just to reiterate what Chip so perfectly said, there is no disputed Land between NT and Trentannia. To add to his remarks I do not want an archipelago or islands anymore, just simply the two small countries to my bottom right, this does not include Venland.

l in no way meant for you to think I was trying to keep you from incorporating any land, even other claims not including the two small countries. My issue wasn't the land, really, it was making sure everyone understands the authority and jurisdictionof our committees and assemblies, both in-character and out. We have made big changes,it will take a while for everyone to get acustomed.