Petition to Free the Map

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='11 June 2010 - 07:12 PM' timestamp='1276301539' post='2334062']
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.
[/quote]

Because a rule was created saying that OOC permission had to be asked for before making any IC thread. I am saying that it should be removed.

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Kevin Kingswell' date='11 June 2010 - 08:18 PM' timestamp='1276301916' post='2334070']
Because a rule was created saying that OOC permission had to be asked for before making any IC thread. I am saying that it should be removed.
[/quote]

What rule is this?

[quote]- Protectorates are land set aside by blocs, nations, etc. for new nations. They are not an integral part of any nation, or bloc, and will normally be ceded to those who wish to place their nation there. However, you must speak to that bloc, nation, etc. before claiming the land.
[/quote]


There is nothing that states you have to ask OOCly for that land.

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='11 June 2010 - 07:24 PM' timestamp='1276302263' post='2334079']
What rule is this?




There is nothing that states you have to ask OOCly for that land.
[/quote]

Oh... you are right you don't need OOC permission I guess. I always misread that as needing to ask OOC not IC.

[Shadowsage]

[quote name='Sargun' date='11 June 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1276296086' post='2333955']
You've given out tiny islands and insignificant pieces of land. That doesn't mean anything, and actually proves the opposite.
[/quote]
And what do you think people have asked for? I've given out exactly what was asked for. Nothing less. You should stop jumping to conclusions and learn to be civilized.

[Yawoo]

Protectorates are there for nations to grow and for new nations to form. I read the logs about Hawk's Mexico problem ( I don't remember talking with him), and to be honest, so what? You're an existing CNRP player who was one of probably eight or nine people to contact Ty, Shadowsage and myself about the Mexican protectorate. Do you think we should've dropped everyone's request and just given you the whole Mexican protectorate? I hope not, otherwise I'd have to call you an egotistical $%&@. Of the eight or nine nations that contacted us, I believe two dropped out of the running citing interests in other parts of the map. Bull Run re-rolled, leaving roughly six candidates. You (Hawk) were offered a sliver of Mexico after Ty, Shadowsage and myself worked on the borders of the Mexican protectorate trying to please everyone, including ourselves with the borders. It took about a month, I'm sorry, but that's the brakes when there are a lot of people going after a chunk of land and the protectors of the protectorate having RL to worry about. You turned down the piece of the Mexican territory offered to you, so you can't go around complaining now. If I remember correctly, you were wiped from the your nation in China because of your lack of activity - which is 25 days, so why, exactly, are you complaining that it took three people working on roughly six people's request for a chunk of land five more days than the time it took you to be wiped?

You can ask the CNRP community and I'd estimate 95% of them would say I'm a reasonable person. If you want a chunk of land in North America, and I see via the map thread you do, then ask Ty, Vince and I, we will do our best to accommodate you. We aren't holding all the protectorate land for ourselves, while there is a certain protectorate area in Canada I have plans for, I have gone out of my way to accommodate those who request protectorate land from me - including in Canada.

Here is a history of Louisiana's protectorates.

Ty and I have given away roughly [b]85%[/b] of the Canadian territory we placed a protectorate over.
The Mexican protectorate has hosted [b]five[/b] separate nations.
The former Tahoe Republic turned protectorate has now spawned [b]three[/b] nations, and a colony of an existing nation. I do not count Cuba, Midway, Hawaii or Guam in these numbers as they were conquered and taken over via war, no protectorate was placed on these locations.


Before people get on their soap boxes and proclaim protectorates are bad because nations only use them to expand, I suggest everyone do more research. The majority of protectorates are used to help the community of CNRP, and yes, while some protectorates are reserved for expansion - the vast majority of the percentage of land in protectorates is used in a way that does not benefit the nation(s) that have protection over the land.

[Uberstein]

[quote name='Yawoo' date='11 June 2010 - 08:53 PM' timestamp='1276314819' post='2334438']
Protectorates are there for nations to grow and for new nations to form. I read the logs about Hawk's Mexico problem ( I don't remember talking with him), and to be honest, so what? You're an existing CNRP player who was one of probably eight or nine people to contact Ty, Shadowsage and myself about the Mexican protectorate. Do you think we should've dropped everyone's request and just given you the whole Mexican protectorate? I hope not, otherwise I'd have to call you an egotistical $%&@. Of the eight or nine nations that contacted us, I believe two dropped out of the running citing interests in other parts of the map. Bull Run re-rolled, leaving roughly six candidates. You (Hawk) were offered a sliver of Mexico after Ty, Shadowsage and myself worked on the borders of the Mexican protectorate trying to please everyone, including ourselves with the borders. It took about a month, I'm sorry, but that's the brakes when there are a lot of people going after a chunk of land and the protectors of the protectorate having RL to worry about. You turned down the piece of the Mexican territory offered to you, so you can't go around complaining now. If I remember correctly, you were wiped from the your nation in China because of your lack of activity - which is 25 days, so why, exactly, are you complaining that it took three people working on roughly six people's request for a chunk of land five more days than the time it took you to be wiped?

You can ask the CNRP community and I'd estimate 95% of them would say I'm a reasonable person. If you want a chunk of land in North America, and I see via the map thread you do, then ask Ty, Vince and I, we will do our best to accommodate you. We aren't holding all the protectorate land for ourselves, while there is a certain protectorate area in Canada I have plans for, I have gone out of my way to accommodate those who request protectorate land from me - including in Canada.

Here is a history of Louisiana's protectorates.

Ty and I have given away roughly [b]85%[/b] of the Canadian territory we placed a protectorate over.
The Mexican protectorate has hosted [b]five[/b] separate nations.
The former Tahoe Republic turned protectorate has now spawned [b]three[/b] nations, and a colony of an existing nation. I do not count Cuba, Midway, Hawaii or Guam in these numbers as they were conquered and taken over via war, no protectorate was placed on these locations.


Before people get on their soap boxes and proclaim protectorates are bad because nations only use them to expand, I suggest everyone do more research. The majority of protectorates are used to help the community of CNRP, and yes, while some protectorates are reserved for expansion - the vast majority of the percentage of land in protectorates is used in a way that does not benefit the nation(s) that have protection over the land.
[/quote]
Wow, I'm actually agreeing with you on something.

Very well put, couldn't have said it better myself.

[king of cochin]

This entire thread seems to be nothing more than a Baaaw fest for people to rant and rail at people who have land. As one of the players accused of being a land hog, permit me to clarify my position.

The land I possess now has been gained through IC RPs, most of it having being gained through the cooperation of mael. At a time I used to maintain extensive protectorates from Uzbekistan, to Mongolia to South China, most of that territory having been doled out to multiple new nations during the course of my RP here. I have also significantly reduced my own territory into protectorates which are nos sovereign land belonging to others when I found that my land extents were untenable.

As a person who strove really hard to get the territory I have now, I have no intention to get rid of them to satisfy the banal trepidations of an inactive few. You want land? Try to get it through RP. I wanted India when I started RP, but I could not get it because it was RPd as Dragonisia by mael. I lived with it. I was patient to wait to get it. CNRP does not owe an allegiance to any of the elites here.

I say protectorates should be there else there would be no white land. Baskan, Cardnals, Curristan and Mongol Empire are all people who came up in protectorate regions. During my previous Lhasa Doctrine, these lands used to be reserved solely for new players. That is now gone ICly, due to the RP politics.

[Szent Korona]

The only thing that might be a problem is possibily using OOC reasons to deny. Other than that, I see no reason.


Example: Taipei was being reserved for a new player, but it was given to an experienced player who happened to be a OOC ally. I am okay with this, but it can be something that is bad.

[hawk11]

[quote name='Yawoo' date='11 June 2010 - 11:53 PM' timestamp='1276314819' post='2334438']
Protectorates are there for nations to grow and for new nations to form. I read the logs about Hawk's Mexico problem ( I don't remember talking with him), and to be honest, so what? You're an existing CNRP player who was one of probably eight or nine people to contact Ty, Shadowsage and myself about the Mexican protectorate. [b]Do you think we should've dropped everyone's request and just given you the whole Mexican protectorate? I hope not, otherwise I'd have to call you an egotistical $%&@.[/b] Of the eight or nine nations that contacted us, I believe two dropped out of the running citing interests in other parts of the map. Bull Run re-rolled, leaving roughly six candidates. You (Hawk) were offered a sliver of Mexico after Ty, Shadowsage and myself worked on the borders of the Mexican protectorate trying to please everyone, including ourselves with the borders.[/quote]

You're so quick to pass judgment. You say you read the whole log, yet throw this snipe in at me after I said in there that I didn't mind the size of the protectorate, I mind how long it took you guys. Thankfully, you continue to address my actual reason for disdain in the next chunk.

[quote]It took about a month, I'm sorry, but that's the brakes when there are a lot of people going after a chunk of land and the protectors of the protectorate having RL to worry about. You turned down the piece of the Mexican territory offered to you, so you can't go around complaining now.[/quote]

Sure I can. I can go around complaining because that's the entire point of this argument. I shouldn't need to wait a month for any reason because I need to seek your permission to start in land you're not using. I contacted you guys for a new place to start, and it took so long that myself, as a new nation, was no longer interested in the territory. And real-life is a terrible thing to cite because at the time you were waging a campaign against Tahoe. A campaign in which your side of the conflict kept ridiculing Tahoe for taking so long, which is something I'm pointing out you did here.

[quote]If I remember correctly, you were wiped from the your nation in China because of your lack of activity - which is 25 days, so why, exactly, are you complaining that it took three people working on roughly six people's request for a chunk of land five more days than the time it took you to be wiped?[/quote]

It's cute you feel the need to defend yourself by attacking me here, but no one cares about your involvement in the past situation. It's a non-issue. No one's trying to lynch you. The only reason you're so upset is because the log of me complaining [i]can[/i] be traced back to involve [i]you[/i] somehow, and you're trying rather pathetically to make yourself look better when no one actually cares. I can see you care about your good name, but this isn't the way to go around protecting it. You can stop trying to undermine me by citing the reason I was wiped from the map all the way back in God-knows-when.

Edited June 12, 2010 by hawk_11

[Triyun]

[quote name='Lavo_2' date='12 June 2010 - 12:02 AM' timestamp='1276297322' post='2333988']
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.
[/quote]

I would find this a good compromise.

[Yawoo]

[quote name='hawk_11' date='12 June 2010 - 07:35 AM' timestamp='1276346102' post='2334871']
You're so quick to pass judgment. You say you read the whole log, yet throw this snipe in at me after I said in there that I didn't mind the size of the protectorate, I mind how long it took you guys. Thankfully, you continue to address my actual reason for disdain in the next chunk.

Sure I can. I can go around complaining because that's the entire point of this argument. I shouldn't need to wait a month for any reason because I need to seek your permission to start in land you're not using. I contacted you guys for a new place to start, and it took so long that myself, as a new nation, was no longer interested in the territory. And real-life is a terrible thing to cite because at the time you were waging a campaign against Tahoe. A campaign in which your side of the conflict kept ridiculing Tahoe for taking so long, which is something I'm pointing out you did here.

It's cute you feel the need to defend yourself by attacking me here, but no one cares about your involvement in the past situation. It's a non-issue. No one's trying to lynch you. The only reason you're so upset is because the log of me complaining [i]can[/i] be traced back to involve [i]you[/i] somehow, and you're trying rather pathetically to make yourself look better when no one actually cares. I can see you care about your good name, but this isn't the way to go around protecting it. You can stop trying to undermine me by citing the reason I was wiped from the map all the way back in God-knows-when.
[/quote]

If you'd pay attention, you'd notice I apologized to Tahoe for being absent because of RL (moved apartments) and taking a bit long to post my moves. A month is not an unreasonable time to expect when there are multiple nations seeking the Mexican protectorate, I had already posted that there were more than one nation seeking the Mexican protectorate. So, tough luck, if you can't wait around a month then you don't deserve the land.

It's cute you refuse to defend yourself and instead try to spin my valid points into somehow me having to defend myself by crushing you. Get a grip on your ego. The fact is, your nation [i]was[/i] wiped because of inactivity less than six months ago, and you're already complaining that you had to wait a month. The fact is, despite your line in the logs, is that you wanted the whole Mexican protectorate, same way you were looking after going for the full Italian protectorate. I don't give a rat's $@! if you think as a more experienced player you deserve special favors, it won't be happening when I'm protecting land. Everyone is equal in my eyes - experienced player or not. So continue to moan about how it took three players working hard to satisfy everyone's desires a full month to give you a chunk of land you promptly refused. It's rather amusing.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Yawoo

[hawk11]

[quote name='Yawoo' date='12 June 2010 - 11:55 AM' timestamp='1276358129' post='2335023']It's cute you refuse to defend yourself and instead try to spin my valid points into somehow me having to defend myself by crushing you. Get a grip on your ego. The fact is, your nation [i]was[/i] wiped because of inactivity less than six months ago, and you're already complaining that you had to wait a month. The fact is, despite your line in the logs, is that you wanted the whole Mexican protectorate, same way you were looking after going for the full Italian protectorate. I don't give a rat's $@! if you think as a more experienced player you deserve special favors, it won't be happening when I'm protecting land. Everyone is equal in my eyes - experienced player or not. So continue to moan about how it took three players working hard to satisfy everyone's desires a full month to give you a chunk of land you promptly refused. It's rather amusing.
[/quote]

I don't know why you keep moving this back to my nation being wiped for inactivity. You're trying to say I've got no right to complain about anyone getting a bum rap because I let my activity drop for a month. Well then, I've got news for you: Yes I am complaining I had to wait a month, but not because I feel I'm entitled to have land immediately; I'm complaining about the possibility of [b]anyone[/b] having to wait a month. It's unreasonable, [i]don't let it happen again if you don't want complaints.[/i] If I need to get a grip on my ego for logging a legitimate complaint, that someone has to wait a month to get on the map because three people can't have a five minute conversation on how to dole out land on a protectorate, then perhaps it's you who has to check their ego. Just because you stamped your name on that land doesn't mean I have to put up with your !@#$%^&* with a smile.

And yes, I prefer to have a nice sizable nation. Looking at the map at some of the extremely large nations, I don't see why this is a problem. If I'm not satisfied with the protectorate, yes I'm going to try to get more out of it. But after a month of waiting, I didn't even want the land in Mexico anymore, I had just started RABN two days before which I wanted to do without a nation. I guarantee you're about to bring up what happened to RABN, so I'll say it now: the concept was too much work.

[Yawoo]

Since my name is stamped on the protectorate - you do have to put up with my !@#$ and smile. Don't like it? Then there is plenty of other land on the map that is open for negotiation that doesn't have "Louisiana" on it. Considering most new people don't bother reading the rules, a month should give them plenty of time to familiarize themselves with all of CNRP's rules as well as the basics of CNRP. If they can't wait that long, then there is virtually no hope for them lasting once they get a nation, however, the month wait was one abnormal occurrence that hasn't happened before or since so it's not like every protectorate has that going on. It seems like all this is just !@#$%*ing over one abnormal occurrence which is silly.

[Owned-You]

Personally, I dislike protectorates over wide swaths of land from nations who for all intents and purposes shouldn't or otherwise wouldn't be capable of holding the lands but can due to being firmly wrapped in a blanket of treaties and relying on those treaties to protect said claims. Sure it's a valid means of playing; but I simply hate the concept of relying on others to provide IC muscle.

[hawk11]

[quote name='Yawoo' date='12 June 2010 - 01:52 PM' timestamp='1276365123' post='2335176']
Since my name is stamped on the protectorate - you do have to put up with my !@#$ and smile. Don't like it? Then there is plenty of other land on the map that is open for negotiation that doesn't have "Louisiana" on it.[/quote]

This is the crux of my issue with protectorates. This land isn't part of your nation, you don't want to annex it, and all you're doing is making sure nobody else swallows the land into their nation (in essence protecting it for new players). So why should I have to put up with your rules? It's open land; why is there a gatekeeper? While you think it's silly, I don't think it's silly. I don't feel like a player should have that kind of control over new players getting nations in an out-of-character manner, and I'm willing to argue the point. I say that if you don't like the nation that sprung up in the area, invade them in-character.

[Markus Wilding]

Can you two stop arguing and let's get back to the OP?

[Yawoo]

[quote name='hawk_11' date='12 June 2010 - 01:13 PM' timestamp='1276366362' post='2335199']
This is the crux of my issue with protectorates. This land isn't part of your nation, you don't want to annex it, and all you're doing is making sure nobody else swallows the land into their nation (in essence protecting it for new players). So why should I have to put up with your rules? It's open land; why is there a gatekeeper? While you think it's silly, I don't think it's silly. I don't feel like a player should have that kind of control over new players getting nations in an out-of-character manner, and I'm willing to argue the point. I say that if you don't like the nation that sprung up in the area, invade them in-character.
[/quote]
Actually, as I have said before, there is a small portion of the Canadian protectorate that I have reserved for my annexation. You and I won't agree on this protectorate issue, so I'm going to stop arguing with you over it as it is rather pointless to continue arguing for no reason.

[hawk11]

[quote name='Yawoo' date='12 June 2010 - 02:17 PM' timestamp='1276366605' post='2335204']
Actually, as I have said before, there is a small portion of the Canadian protectorate that I have reserved for my annexation. You and I won't agree on this protectorate issue, so I'm going to stop arguing with you over it as it is rather pointless to continue arguing for no reason.
[/quote]

I missed the annexation part, I'll admit, but that still leaves a very large part of the protectorate open. But why are we stopping now? We stopped the petty name-calling and got to the logical part of the discussion! Why are you leaving [i]now?[/i]

[Yawoo]

[quote name='hawk_11' date='12 June 2010 - 01:20 PM' timestamp='1276366811' post='2335209']
I missed the annexation part, I'll admit, but that still leaves a very large part of the protectorate open. But why are we stopping now? We stopped the petty name-calling and got to the logical part of the discussion! Why are you leaving [i]now?[/i]
[/quote]
I'm perfectly happy to continue - but I'm just not sure if it's going to get anywhere. How about this, would you mind re-typing why you're against protectorates? That way I can respond in a new post?

[hawk11]

I'm against protectorates because it makes it so that new players have to receive that land from existing players rather than just claim and declare. It creates a gatekeeper (which has been my buzzword admittedly) and an unnecessary level of bureaucracy, and I'm of the opinion it also puts new nations on a lower level than the nation they received the land from. I believe that nations can protect lands from the action of "swallowing up land" by in-character actions that don't involve fencing off huge swaths of land and saying it's your protectorate, then doing nothing with that land. It stagnates RP in certain areas, and in some (not so) extreme cases, the protector annexes the land anyway so it was for naught in the first place. I'd rather players be more honest than that.

Also, it gives the player protecting that land the ability to control who gets the land in that area. Rather than allow new players to join and start wherever they please, you can get a situation where someone rolls a nation, declares it a protectorate, then gives it to a friend x amount of days later (let x be whatever number you want) without allowing anyone else who wanted that land to get it. The prevention was done entirely out of character. No role-playing was done to prevent the unwanted nation from existing, it was due to that player being capable of being a gatekeeper to the land they fenced off. I will admit that this case is rarer than the case I presented earlier (people annexing protectorates anyway), and I know no one will ever admit to doing that, but I'm sure it has happened.

Rather than having protectorates be capable of limiting new (and older) players in this fashion, I propose we strike that kind of control from existence. Eliminate marking protectorates on the map, and disallow players from controlling who is capable of forming nations there. I am [i]not[/i] proposing the elimination of the concept of protectorates from role-play. Players should be able to take in-character actions to protect areas they feel are strategically important to them. However, that's an in-character action. That should not force players to have to go out-of-character to establish a nation. Players should be able to form a nation there because it is open. Then, the players who have declared themselves protectors of said area can react accordingly in-character, whether it be diplomacy or warfare. This also adds a level of realism to the game because nations in real life do not need to check with anyone before declaring themselves into existence.

Those are my principle arguments against protectorates.

[Sal Paradise]

Someone on the first page mentioned that colouring the whole map would make players think everything was taken and wouldn't ask to join. I dunno, when I first look into this forum when I joined the game, I looked at the map with all its protectorates and thought what a dick move this protectorate thing is, they just took everything and then seemingly don't use it. I had no idea that meant it was still up for grabs for new players as you seem to be indicating in this thread. Though it's still a dick move, because you have to ask permission to use the land from the person that owns it.

Why not have protectorates internationally protected as reserves for new players?

Also, someone hook Sal up with some prime Canadian wasteland.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Sal Paradise

[Yawoo]

[quote name='hawk_11' date='12 June 2010 - 01:41 PM' timestamp='1276368056' post='2335232']
I'm against protectorates because it makes it so that new players have to receive that land from existing players rather than just claim and declare. It creates a gatekeeper (which has been my buzzword admittedly) and an unnecessary level of bureaucracy, and I'm of the opinion it also puts new nations on a lower level than the nation they received the land from. [b]I believe that nations can protect lands from the action of "swallowing up land" by in-character actions that don't involve fencing off huge swaths of land and saying it's your protectorate[/b], then doing nothing with that land. It stagnates RP in certain areas, and in some (not so) extreme cases, the protector annexes the land anyway so it was for naught in the first place. I'd rather players be more honest than that.[/quote]

Isn't that the purpose of a protectorate, in some cases? To protect a certain piece of land from being swallowed up by other in-character actions? How else would a nation go about protecting the land? All protectorate land has troops sent in to ensure security - so how would you propose a different in-character action happen to protect land, if not via a protectorate?

[quote]Also, it gives the player protecting that land the ability to control who gets the land in that area. Rather than allow new players to join and start wherever they please, you can get a situation where someone rolls a nation, declares it a protectorate, then gives it to a friend x amount of days later (let x be whatever number you want) without allowing anyone else who wanted that land to get it. The prevention was done entirely out of character. No role-playing was done to prevent the unwanted nation from existing, it was due to that player being capable of being a gatekeeper to the land they fenced off. I will admit that this case is rarer than the case I presented earlier (people annexing protectorates anyway), and I know no one will ever admit to doing that, but I'm sure it has happened.[/quote]

I agree this is a problem, so I yield you this point.

[quote]Rather than having protectorates be capable of limiting new (and older) players in this fashion, I propose we strike that kind of control from existence. Eliminate marking protectorates on the map, and disallow players from controlling who is capable of forming nations there. I am [i]not[/i] proposing the elimination of the concept of protectorates from role-play. Players should be able to take in-character actions to protect areas they feel are strategically important to them. However, that's an in-character action. That should not force players to have to go out-of-character to establish a nation. Players should be able to form a nation there because it is open. Then, the players who have declared themselves protectors of said area can react accordingly in-character, whether it be diplomacy or warfare. This also adds a level of realism to the game because nations in real life do not need to check with anyone before declaring themselves into existence.

Those are my principle arguments against protectorates.
[/quote]

I don't quite understand what you want. You say, strike protectorates form the map as well as their ability to control who forms there, but yet, you say you are not proposing the elimination of the concept of protectorates. Can you please explain? In regards to forcing players to go OOC, no one is forced to go out of character, and it is quite easy to stay IC and request that the land be allowed to form it's own country. See Karl Martin's many posts asking for land for an example of IC actions asking for protectorate land. Many choose to take it to PM simply for convenience sake and so not everybody is aware of their plan until it comes to fruition.

[quote name='Sal Paradise' date='12 June 2010 - 01:46 PM' timestamp='1276368389' post='2335234']
Also, someone hook Sal up with some prime Canadian wasteland.
[/quote]

Half of Ontario is still up for grabs, but Ty is away until the 20th of June. Would you mind waiting until I can speak with him then? If you can't wait, then I will give my permission for you to take half of Ontario and will deal with Ty myself if he has any problems with the acquisition (which I doubt he will).

[hawk11]

[quote name='Yawoo' date='12 June 2010 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1276372201' post='2335292']
Isn't that the purpose of a protectorate, in some cases? To protect a certain piece of land from being swallowed up by other in-character actions? How else would a nation go about protecting the land? All protectorate land has troops sent in to ensure security - so how would you propose a different in-character action happen to protect land, if not via a protectorate?

...

I don't quite understand what you want. You say, strike protectorates form the map as well as their ability to control who forms there, but yet, you say you are not proposing the elimination of the concept of protectorates. Can you please explain? In regards to forcing players to go OOC, no one is forced to go out of character, and it is quite easy to stay IC and request that the land be allowed to form it's own country. See Karl Martin's many posts asking for land for an example of IC actions asking for protectorate land. Many choose to take it to PM simply for convenience sake and so not everybody is aware of their plan until it comes to fruition.
[/quote]

I want to remove all out-of-character restrictions and markings of protectorates. A nation can still declare that it is protecting an area from other nations (a protectorate); however, that area is not marked on the map as "NATION X'S PROTECTORATE", instead staying white because it is not territory of the protecting nation and it is open to new players.

As Sal said, in a manner that was completely unrehearsed and uncompensated (check's in the mail, Sal), new players are becoming confused over what's allowed to be formed on and what's not. Marking protectorates in such a fashion implies that they cannot have a new nation formed on them, and it does lead to the gatekeeper argument I keep making in some instances.

[Karl Martin]

[quote name='Yawoo' date='12 June 2010 - 01:50 PM' timestamp='1276372201' post='2335292']
See Karl Martin's many posts asking for land for an example of IC actions asking for protectorate land.[/quote]

Of which all were denied for OOC reasons that I will not relate here. But thanks for using me as an example, as much as it is a fail of one.

[Markus Wilding]

How do you know they were OOC? There could be a reasonable IC explanation.