An Explanation on Reductions

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:11 pm

I am sure some of you are wondering why we've reduced all members on the map and taken into account activity levels as a factor in those reductions. Well, now that the latest map has been published, you will learn a little more about just what has been going on.

Previous to publishing this map and moving the MCS here, I had been wanting to reduce the Grand Commonwealth due to an excess of land claims. However, I was threatened with having the MCS forum at MNN be deleted by Iain if I ever made such reductions. Now the cat's out of the bag, as the MCS no longer need rely on MNN and we've backed everything up here.

That is the first reason, of just a few.

The second reason is because we have long had issues of quantifying activty, determining what constitutes activity, and enforcing a system which provides an equation to determine land priviledges per active citizen.

That will all be changing starting now.

Bill and myself are spearheading an effort to work out a system which quantifies how much land a nation may claim based upon the number of active citizens it has. We're currently working on the methods in which to apply this, but it will be applied before the next update I can promise you.

This is why the scaling down has been relatively proportionate. You'll notice that our largest members are all relatively the same size now. Same goes for our smaller members. This has been done to lay out a basis for the new regulations which will take affect between now and the next update. In that time, and once the system is ironed out, we will allow members to verify their numbers and adjust their claims as they see fit based on the new system. This includes reclaiming lost land if it is justified under the new accounting system.

The new system will be fair to all, and therefore present a solid equation which cannot be biased or subject to favortism. This will alleviate claims of bias towards the GC, Shireroth and so forth, and also regulate the claiming system across the board.

If you have any questions about this or the reductions, please feel free to ask.

darcyj · Post by **darcyj** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:26 pm

The Republic of Anthelia has no objection to this reduction - in fact, it is only a tiny bit different to the reduction we were going to volunteer. A bit of individual consultation would have been nice, as we would have found agreement very quickly.

What I do object to is the random reduction on the eastern side of Paulovia. The new boundary has been drawn with no rhyme or reason - no relationship to the terrain or any other factor which usually contributes to the delineation of a political boundary. This has been one of my favourite objections to the methodology of the MCS over the time I have known it. Cartography is a wholistic field of study - you cannot really separate political line-drawing from a study of the landforms, etc.

Bill3000 · Post by **Bill3000** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:39 pm

no relationship to the terrain or any other factor which usually contributes to the delineation of a political boundary.

Incorrect. It was just removing one province. :P

darcyj · Post by **darcyj** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:02 pm

Bah, why am I bothering. 90% of the lines drawn on Micras are random.

Emperor Edgard II · Post by **Emperor Edgard II** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:28 am

I have to admit that at first I was upset at the removal of Anglien

... but come to think of it, we weren't really THAT active (although we are pretty active though

) and... well, better Anglien than Rio Grande or something.

I commend the MCS for working hard to make this map independent, updated and viable. Good work, and if there are more reductions to come (in regards to Alexandria), could you please inform me beforehand? Thanks.

Zatriarch Maximillideus · Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:26 pm

Yes! Well done, Bill, Vehendi, and Ryan

Feel free to drop in to Hadji Mehmet's any day

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:13 pm

Reductions can be ammended so long as they are proportionate. I consulted as many people as humanly possible between work and college. Ultimately, the map needed to be published rather than continue to wait and negotiate.

darcyj · Post by **darcyj** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:36 pm

As I said, Anthelia is happy with the result.

AmbassadorJames · Post by **AmbassadorJames** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:01 pm

Paulovia is not happy with the result. Many hours have been spent developing our MCS presence, including the details of our provinces - now useless for a significant part of Paulovia.

Paulovia's forum activity may have decreased of late but that's because all our citizens have to work for a living! Having joined the MCS in January then have a 20% reduction of territory in April, seems somewhat harsh given larger nations have been less than active for far longer. How about cutting us some slack and giving us time to develop before culling?

If reductions are necessary, it would have been nice to have had the option to choose which province we 'lost'.

Yours disappointedly

Post by **Vehendi** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:36 pm

Almost all micronationalists have a job or go to college. And you lost only 10% of your territory, which is really is not much when looked at your forums.

AmbassadorJames · Post by **AmbassadorJames** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:05 pm

You've missed the point of my post but I'm not going to exchange semantics with you.

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:24 pm

Reductions can be modified at a member's discretion. So long as there is a reduction, an adjustment can be made.

Consider Atkins to be a map pro-tempore. For those who wish to modify or fine-tune their reductions to something more aesthetically pleasing, that is fully allowable.