what is the original forum address?kingjames wrote:That's not the original Gaia forum. Hieu made it.
I thought he had made it under permission from the CIS...
what is the original forum address?kingjames wrote:That's not the original Gaia forum. Hieu made it.
Colonel Vilhelm wrote:Ten-four Rubber Duck
I (yes that's me, Craitman) wrote:I'm just so quotable
Colonel Vilhelm wrote:Putting a claim into the MCS Administration Council is like sticking your Arm into a large peice of industrial machinery - it probably won't come out, but if it does, it'll have changed alot from how you remember it.
thanks.kingjames wrote:1. I'll try to find it, it was a proboards forum.
2. Nope, search all the forums that you wish, we recieved no notification.
Colonel Vilhelm wrote:Ten-four Rubber Duck
I (yes that's me, Craitman) wrote:I'm just so quotable
Colonel Vilhelm wrote:Putting a claim into the MCS Administration Council is like sticking your Arm into a large peice of industrial machinery - it probably won't come out, but if it does, it'll have changed alot from how you remember it.
James, remember that Forum dates back to 2006 as North Gaia when it has the CIS logo on the header.kingjames wrote:1. I'll try to find it, it was a proboards forum.Craitman wrote:what is the original forum address?kingjames wrote:That's not the original Gaia forum. Hieu made it.
I thought he had made it under permission from the CIS...
2. Nope, search all the forums that you wish, we recieved no notification.
The current one?Hieu wrote:James, remember that Forum dates back to 2006 as North Gaia when it has the CIS logo on the header.kingjames wrote:1. I'll try to find it, it was a proboards forum.Craitman wrote: what is the original forum address?
I thought he had made it under permission from the CIS...
2. Nope, search all the forums that you wish, we recieved no notification.
Yes. you registered as "Primeminister" on 2nd July 2006.kingjames wrote:The current one?Hieu wrote:James, remember that Forum dates back to 2006 as North Gaia when it has the CIS logo on the header.kingjames wrote: 1. I'll try to find it, it was a proboards forum.
2. Nope, search all the forums that you wish, we recieved no notification.
I reclaimed it and rejoined CIS when Spangle took over, but the fact that it wasn't in CIS for several months, the treaty has been broken!!! YES BROKEN!North Gaia.
« Thread Started on Aug 26, 2006, 2:49pm »
Earlier today, Hieu informed me that he has left micronationalism. Therefore North Gaia is no longer a member nation of the CIS. And as far as we are concerned it no longer exists.
So in that case, the REPUBLIC of Gaia gets its independance.Iehova wrote:A separate micronation that just happened to be called Gaia and bear similarities to the Gaia that was bound by that treaty would not be bound by the aforementioned treaty. It's the same as what happened to Hatay to allow it to become independent.
If this is the case, and the new, different Gaia was allowed to join the CIS, then that's all hunky dory and Gaia can do what it wants.
For reference: http://www.grand-commonwealth.com/forum ... topic=1220
Hieu wrote:So in that case, the REPUBLIC of Gaia gets its independance.
I think so Hieu...Iehova wrote:that's all hunky dory and Gaia can do what it wants.
Colonel Vilhelm wrote:Ten-four Rubber Duck
I (yes that's me, Craitman) wrote:I'm just so quotable
Colonel Vilhelm wrote:Putting a claim into the MCS Administration Council is like sticking your Arm into a large peice of industrial machinery - it probably won't come out, but if it does, it'll have changed alot from how you remember it.
You gave land to the KINGDOM of GAIA in the past...thats not the INDEPENDANT MICRONATION of GAIA. This is neither, this is the REPUBLIC of GAIA.dr-spangle wrote:iehova, we gave the land and membership to the gaia in the treaty... should this not be this nation then that is not and was not their land.
Whether Jamzinia keeps its land from the CIS or not is something which needs to be negotiated between Jamzinia and the CIS, not the MCS. We simply act as advisors and, where possible, help people come to agreeable compromises.
King James, as I have said on the CIS forums, the CIS claimed as a united micronation and thus has been treated as such. The power to alter borders lies with the CIS senate. Since you are not a member any more, you will have to claim individually. That is exactly what Col did. If you do not want to stay a CIS member, you do not gain CIS MCS land.
Realistically, seceding nations should take the land they took up before. I'm sure Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro are still located in the former yugoslavian land. I'm sure Ukraine are still where the former Ukraine SSR were, I'm sure Belarus is still bordering them too.kingjames wrote:This has happened before, with me on the other end ironically; and it was decided in CIS favour.
http://www.micromaps.org/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=
Consistency.
As Ryan said at the time,
Whether Jamzinia keeps its land from the CIS or not is something which needs to be negotiated between Jamzinia and the CIS, not the MCS. We simply act as advisors and, where possible, help people come to agreeable compromises.
And Max -
King James, as I have said on the CIS forums, the CIS claimed as a united micronation and thus has been treated as such. The power to alter borders lies with the CIS senate. Since you are not a member any more, you will have to claim individually. That is exactly what Col did. If you do not want to stay a CIS member, you do not gain CIS MCS land.
Bosnia, Croatioa, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenagro didn't agree to becoming a CIS state, like Gaia. You were well aware that land is CIS land prior to joining. Also in the real world countrys don't exactly have to face a mapping organisation's council, presenting their claim.Hieu wrote:Realistically, seceding nations should take the land they took up before. I'm sure Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro are still located in the former yugoslavian land. I'm sure Ukraine are still where the former Ukraine SSR were, I'm sure Belarus is still bordering them too.kingjames wrote:This has happened before, with me on the other end ironically; and it was decided in CIS favour.
http://www.micromaps.org/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=
Consistency.
As Ryan said at the time,
Whether Jamzinia keeps its land from the CIS or not is something which needs to be negotiated between Jamzinia and the CIS, not the MCS. We simply act as advisors and, where possible, help people come to agreeable compromises.
And Max -
King James, as I have said on the CIS forums, the CIS claimed as a united micronation and thus has been treated as such. The power to alter borders lies with the CIS senate. Since you are not a member any more, you will have to claim individually. That is exactly what Col did. If you do not want to stay a CIS member, you do not gain CIS MCS land.
not the most English of place names...kingj wrote:Treaty of Sèvres
Colonel Vilhelm wrote:Ten-four Rubber Duck
I (yes that's me, Craitman) wrote:I'm just so quotable
Colonel Vilhelm wrote:Putting a claim into the MCS Administration Council is like sticking your Arm into a large peice of industrial machinery - it probably won't come out, but if it does, it'll have changed alot from how you remember it.
From Wikipedia:Craitman wrote:not the most English of place names...kingj wrote:Treaty of Sèvres
Sorry, I meant to do that in my non-official voice, and I wasn't actually talking about the territory, which is a separate issue.kingjames wrote:Shouldn't the council be the ones who decide on this rather than just Iehova?
Ok, thanks for taking the time to explain. My appologies for misinterpreting it.Iehova wrote:Sorry, I meant to do that in my non-official voice, and I wasn't actually talking about the territory, which is a separate issue.kingjames wrote:Shouldn't the council be the ones who decide on this rather than just Iehova?
As you can see with Hatay, it was recognised by the GC as a different country to their province of Hatay, hence why the new Kingdom was not bound by membership of Babkha.
However, this meant that Hatay didn't get the land on Geiss that it had as the Sultanate, hence claiming on Micras.
So, ignoring the Republic of Gaia's membership or otherwise of the CIS, if this republic is to be considered a different micronation to the old Micronation of Gaia which bound that nation into membership of the CIS, then it can claim on the map, and of course whether that claim is accepted is the Council's decision.
Now, we have to look at Gaia's membership of the CIS (and do remember that I'm saying all this not as a member of the Admin Council, but just as an unofficial onlooker).
IF the original Gaia was declared by the CIS to be dissolved for being dead (as stated somewhere in this thread, I think), and IF the 'new' Gaia joined the CIS later, then it is entirely reasonable to say that they are not bound by the treaty.
Since Gaia was then added to the CIS' territory once again(?), it is reasonable to assume that that land labeled 'Gaia' referred to the republic and not any predecessor.
This isn't to say that they should get this land, nor does it mean that they shouldn't.
In my unofficial opinion, in the interests of map continuity it would be better for Gaia to remain where it is. However, I do recognize the precedent set by Ryan when he was running the MCS.
Sorry once again for sounding like I was speaking for the whole council. I wasn't. Just my unofficial opinion, again.