Petition to Free the Map

[Sargun II]

You said properly RP'd out. You [b]did not say[/b] IC gifting or war, because "properly RP'd out" is an opinion. I may think something is proper and you don't, so our definitions of proper differ. Apparently you have such a large ego that you think everyone thinks exactly like you.

[Shadowsage]

Don't particularly care either way, thus vote to keep the status quo. Point of fact, I've given up land three times in the recent past and a few times before that, additionally about half my land was inherited as opposed to random-claimed. The majority of the rest was claimed in various wars and the like.

[Sargun II]

You've given out tiny islands and insignificant pieces of land. That doesn't mean anything, and actually proves the opposite.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='hawk_11' date='11 June 2010 - 05:26 PM' timestamp='1276295162' post='2333915']
Here's an idea: let's not mark protectorates on the map, instead keeping it white.
[/quote]
I'm all for this. I remember when I first came here over a year and a half ago, and I was trying to find somewhere to set up. Many of the places that I wanted were protectorates, and I bet that like myself, many of the newbies may think that the space is off limits. I found the first white space that opened up, and that's how I ended up in India. I say that we remove the labels, and make a rule that established nations can't gobble up white space.

[Botha]

[quote name='BaronUberstein' date='11 June 2010 - 01:19 PM' timestamp='1276287534' post='2333586']Annexing land outright just colors the map with no white space left, and suddenly the new players see NOWHERE to go.[/quote]

[color="#000080"]This is my take on the issue. Protectorates may not prevent all the landgrabs but at least it still tells people what is potentially available.

Also keep in mind that some continents are more popular than others. In Europe and North America, protectorates are very temporary as demand for European land is huge - while in Africa, doesn't matter if there were protectorates or not, we cannot seem to give the land away to new players (I know this firsthand from numerous attempts when I have opened up my territory to new players).

I am more worried as a player at seeing massively huge nations (Holy American Empire comes to mind) than worrying about protectorate abuse. [/color]

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='11 June 2010 - 05:35 PM' timestamp='1276295696' post='2333940']
@ Sargun: comprehension fail. I said [i]properly RP'd out[/i]. As in IC gifting or war. Silly Sargun. Apparently you love to read select parts of your opponent's posts.

@ Kevz: I do risk. The point I am making is that if it is pointless, and yuo do get rolled, you have accomplished nothing...and no, that does not necessarily mean you can rebuild on the same spot. All too often the losers in conflicts these days aren't permitted to continue RP'ing on their land.
[/quote]

Standing up to imperialism is pointless?

[hawk11]

[quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' date='11 June 2010 - 06:43 PM' timestamp='1276296185' post='2333958']
I say that we remove the labels, and make a rule that established nations can't gobble up white space.
[/quote]

I'm against that. I believe we need to bring back the sphere of influence rule, and force nations to only be able to take open land that's connected to their current territory.

Edited June 11, 2010 by hawk_11

[Botha]

[quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' date='11 June 2010 - 03:43 PM' timestamp='1276296185' post='2333958']I say that we remove the labels, and make a rule that established nations can't gobble up white space.[/quote]

This won't work, if someone is determined to muscle in and take over the territory, you will just see the gobbler nations declare RP war on the new nations which have moved into the formerly white-space, because once the territory ceases to be vacant, it becomes fair game for your unilateral RP wars.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='hawk_11' date='11 June 2010 - 05:48 PM' timestamp='1276296479' post='2333966']
I'm against that. I believe we need to bring back the sphere of influence rule, and force nations to only be able to take open land that's connected to their previous nation.
[/quote]
Well, if somebody leaves and you have a treaty that said you get the land if they're in anarchy, of course you can take it back.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='Botha' date='11 June 2010 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1276296557' post='2333969']
This won't work, if someone is determined to muscle in and take over the territory, you will just see the gobbler nations declare RP war on the new nations which have moved into the formerly white-space, because once the territory ceases to be vacant, it becomes fair game for your unilateral RP wars.
[/quote]
But people won't do this. FAR more often then not, the world community will support the new person. I remember when Nikonov attacked me, everybody rushed to my defense.

Edited June 11, 2010 by KaiserMelech Mikhail

[hawk11]

[quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' date='11 June 2010 - 06:50 PM' timestamp='1276296624' post='2333972']
Well, if somebody leaves and you have a treaty that said you get the land if they're in anarchy, of course you can take it back.
[/quote]

I don't like that either. If the government fell into anarchy, which in an in-character sense I'm going to say it's because the government no longer agreed with the people, then why should that population acknowledge that treaty if they just ousted the signers?

[Lavo]

Speaking as one of (if not the first) players who created the first protectorates, and having allowed over 20 nations to form out of them and my own "core" territory (with 10-12+ being new RPers), I agree that the current protectorate "system" is heavily flawed. While it is impossible to outright ban protectorates (as even if they are not [i]de jure[/i], they can exist [i]de facto[/i]), I propose something different.

Protectorates should not be marked on the world map thread. Though, I would suggest at the bottom of the World Map thread that the following be added: "A notice to established (not new/forming) nations: These areas are under some protection, attacking and/or invading them may not be a good idea." In that line, there would be a hyperlink to a World Map which has the various protectorates in the world marked on it. Thanks to how this is all set up, and how the second thing is worded, protectorates would essentially be white space, there would still be a note that there still would still be X protectorate, and new players looking at the thread would miss and/or ignore that line, as it does not apply to them.

[The FSM]

Im going to take an example from RL. Back a long, long time ago when the United States was young, there were just a handful of states and it was a fraction of the size it is today. Over time, it came in to possession of a series of territories, at the outset, the US did nothing with this land, it just sat there. No one lived there, there was no political representation in Congress, the few people who did live there could not vote in national elections. Eventually people moved there, organized themselves, and pettitioned Congress to be admitted as States into the Union, which is how the US came to grow to its current size.

This relates to this discussion for the following reasons:
1) Most US states started out as the equivalent of CNRP protectorates
2) Often, the US did absolutely nothing with its territories

From what I understand of the proposals put forward:
1) If the same rules were applied to the US, it would not have expanded much beyond the original 13 colonies

My point is thus: Your proposal stifles the ability of some players to RP. While many with protectorates will never RP anything with them, or will lazily annex them in the future, some players will actually take the time to do what the US did with it's territories; that is, they will take the time to RP politically and economically organizing their territories before accepting them into their union. Your proposal seeks to punish the bad as well as the good and seeks to get rid of something that has, is, and will produce a few good RP's.

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='The Flying Scotsman' date='11 June 2010 - 06:28 PM' timestamp='1276298886' post='2334005']
Im going to take an example from RL. Back a long, long time ago when the United States was young, there were just a handful of states and it was a fraction of the size it is today. Over time, it came in to possession of a series of territories, at the outset, the US did nothing with this land, it just sat there. No one lived there, there was no political representation in Congress, the few people who did live there could not vote in national elections. Eventually people moved there, organized themselves, and pettitioned Congress to be admitted as States into the Union, which is how the US came to grow to its current size.

This relates to this discussion for the following reasons:
1) Most US states started out as the equivalent of CNRP protectorates
2) Often, the US did absolutely nothing with its territories

From what I understand of the proposals put forward:
1) If the same rules were applied to the US, it would not have expanded much beyond the original 13 colonies

My point is thus: Your proposal stifles the ability of some players to RP. While many with protectorates will never RP anything with them, or will lazily annex them in the future, some players will actually take the time to do what the US did with it's territories; that is, they will take the time to RP politically and economically organizing their territories before accepting them into their union. Your proposal seeks to punish the bad as well as the good and seeks to get rid of something that has, is, and will produce a few good RP's.
[/quote]

On that same note having protectorates stifles the RP possibilities of new players as thety must have "permission" to RP. In my eyes someone who already has land under their control has less priority than players who are looking for new land to start roleplaying.

[Voodoo Nova]

Personally, the only issue I see with protectorates is the labeling of them as protectorates. They shouldn't have a label at all. Other than that, it's an IC issue with people taking large protectorates or protectorates that seem inappropriate. You can challenge it, you can do a lot ICly to stop it or even make it your own protectorate.

[The FSM]

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='11 June 2010 - 07:36 PM' timestamp='1276299395' post='2334019']
Personally, the only issue I see with protectorates is the labeling of them as protectorates. They shouldn't have a label at all. Other than that, it's an IC issue with people taking large protectorates or protectorates that seem inappropriate. You can challenge it, you can do a lot ICly to stop it or even make it your own protectorate.
[/quote]

This about sums up what I said on the first or second page

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='The Flying Scotsman' date='11 June 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1276299576' post='2334024']
This about sums up what I said on the first or second page
[/quote]

It isn't an IC issue only when someone can deny someone the land OOC.

[Uberstein]

Has anybody answered the fact that banning protectorates is impossible because people can simply declare war on anyone trying to touch some open land?

It would simply lose the name of protectorate.

[The FSM]

[quote name='Kevin Kingswell' date='11 June 2010 - 07:42 PM' timestamp='1276299711' post='2334028']
It isn't an IC issue only when someone can deny someone the land OOC.
[/quote]

If someone never asks IC, then they cant be denied IC.

Most people only asks for land OOC, thus they can only be denied OOC.

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='The Flying Scotsman' date='11 June 2010 - 06:57 PM' timestamp='1276300618' post='2334046']
If someone never asks IC, then they cant be denied IC.

Most people only asks for land OOC, thus they can only be denied OOC.
[/quote]

It was to my knowledge that you needed OOC permission to make any IC posts in the first place.

[Lavo]

[quote name='BaronUberstein' date='11 June 2010 - 07:54 PM' timestamp='1276300460' post='2334044']
Has anybody answered the fact that banning protectorates is impossible because people can simply declare war on anyone trying to touch some open land?

It would simply lose the name of protectorate.
[/quote]
This is in essence what I've proposed, along with a "warning" to established nations about which (if any) land is a protectorate. In fact, I will use this opportunity to lead by example.

[The FSM]

[quote name='Kevin Kingswell' date='11 June 2010 - 08:02 PM' timestamp='1276300910' post='2334051']
It was to my knowledge that you needed OOC permission to make any IC posts in the first place.
[/quote]

If your a total dick then yes, thats the case. But I overlook that rule if people are just asking for land IC.

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='The Flying Scotsman' date='11 June 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1276301055' post='2334056']
If your a total dick then yes, thats the case. But I overlook that rule if people are just asking for land IC.
[/quote]

Whilst I think thats great that you do that as long as that rule is applicable this issue remains slightly OOC as well as IC which is the point I am trying to make.

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Kevin Kingswell' date='11 June 2010 - 07:42 PM' timestamp='1276299711' post='2334028']
It isn't an IC issue only when someone can deny someone the land OOC.
[/quote]

Which is why the person should create the IC thread to make it IC. I never understood why people expected new comers or rerolls to ask permission before using a protectorate. If someone wants to make a new nation in a protectorate, make an IC thread for it. RP the acquisition of land. It isn't hard.

[Bacharth]

If you're going to annex something, annex it, don't !@#$%foot around and make it a protectorate. If you want to leave something for new players, make it white space. I remember when a lot of the map was whitespace. People can only still take land up to their SoI in whitespace, and if people want to be land grabby and annex a crapton of land, let them. If they don't want to give their land to new players, they will see the consequences of the entire community hating them.