(Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Marquette (of Pacific) Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:01 am

Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Legislation to revoke an expansion

Along with myself, several other nations have become alarmed and worried at the size of certain claims during the “New Year Land Grab”, the expansion started by Great Eurussia to commemorate the new year of 2014.

In this bill, I would like to acknowledge that Great Eurussia has self-proclaimed universal powers regarding map expansions.

I would like to reaffirm that this act is not to revoke those powers he has given himself, but rather to revoke all claims lain by nations in the recent New Year Land Grab.

I would like to inform members of this Parliament that certain nations have claimed the entirety of former nations. For instance: the entirety of the former nations Sambhala Sangha and Schorr have been claimed, and it is out of hand.

This bill is proposing that, if passed, all claims lain by nations in the World Alliance are to be declared void and dissolved immediately. This action is to prevent nations from growing so large in a brief period of time.

I acknowledge that certain nations have claimed tolerable amounts of land, but no exceptions can be made to claims lain by nations in the World Alliance. If exceptions are made, this would no longer be a fair and just movement by the Parliament.

Recognizing that certain nations claimed acceptable amounts of land, but it is impossible and unfair to revoke certain nation's land while others get to keep theirs.

Finally, I would like to specify that this bill is only proposing the revocation of the New Year Land Grab solely, and not the claims of the World Alliance 1 Year and 100 Days Celebration. Also, please keep in mind that this is solely for the preservation of open land available for new nations who come to our region. We're taking up too much space that could be used by new nations.

Also, I am not against expansions by themselves, but when it is a land "grab" where nations can claim almost unlimited amounts of space, it becomes too much. Not to mention, we should not have had a land grab only a few weeks after we had a regular expansion.

Authored by: Marquette of Pacific

Marquette (of Pacific) Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:03 am

We are now in an official 3-day DEBATING period, the period for debating will end at 0:00 (GMT) on the 14th of January, 2014. After which, a 3 day voting period will take place and shall end at 0:00 (GMT) on the 17th of January, 2014.

Great Eurussia Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:23 am

If I may interfere :-)

https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t366p15-wa-map-reforms-committee#11769

And in addition, the issue raised by Marquette saying that there will be no spaces for new nations, well look at the map, again and again. And not to mention, that the map will be expanded on the next update :-)

Anyways, it's a big NO for me :-)

Atletius Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:15 am

This is a very good proposal in principle, but I worry about how it would be implemented.
Wouldn't it be difficult to accomplish this, and surely a better solution would be forcing all nations which claimed over the claim size limit to reclaim an appropriate sized piece of land.

Texania Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:19 am

Atletius wrote:This is a very good proposal in principle, but I worry about how it would be implemented.
Wouldn't it be difficult to accomplish this, and surely a better solution would be forcing all nations which claimed over the claim size limit to reclaim an appropriate sized piece of land.

There was no limit

Marquette (of Pacific) Sun Jan 12, 2014 5:24 am

Atletius wrote:This is a very good proposal in principle, but I worry about how it would be implemented.
Wouldn't it be difficult to accomplish this, and surely a better solution would be forcing all nations which claimed over the claim size limit to reclaim an appropriate sized piece of land.

Reclaiming land would be a good idea. If you would like to write that amendment to the bill, we can vote on adding that in when voting comes around.

@Eurussia, you're a member of Parliament, you're not interfering...

Also, like Shirouma said, we don't need to expand the map to make more room for Imperialist desires, we need to make OOC regulations to make country sizes and the map in general more realistic.

Aloia Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:50 am

I'd like to point out that having all nations being approximately the same size is very unrealistic. Nations like Russia and Canada and China and the USA exist, and nations like the Vatican and San Marino and Andorra and Luxembourg exist. It makes sense to have some huge nations and some small nations.

And I did give up a lot of territory. Shambhala Songha did actually CTE, so it's like the land was empty anyways. I split it with Agorapolis. You shouldn't have the language referring to Shambhala Sangha because they had CTE'd before the expansion period, so it's like their nation collapsed and didn't exist anymore. And the former territory of Schorr was only about half the size of Marquette. This expansion period just allowed New-Zealand and other nations to finally catch up to Marquette in size and it seems like Marquette is upset about this.

Also, I'd like to point out that Marquette is upset because there is supposedly not enough room for other nations to claim, when that's not true because there are open spaces on all the continents.

For these reasons, I urge nations to vote NO on this bill when the time comes.

Marquette (of Pacific) Sun Jan 12, 2014 7:20 am

Aloia wrote:I'd like to point out that having all nations being approximately the same size is very unrealistic. Nations like Russia and Canada and China and the USA exist, and nations like the Vatican and San Marino and Andorra and Luxembourg exist. It makes sense to have some huge nations and some small nations.

And I did give up a lot of territory. Shambhala Songha did actually CTE, so it's like the land was empty anyways. I split it with Agorapolis. You shouldn't have the language referring to Shambhala Sangha because they had CTE'd before the expansion period, so it's like their nation collapsed and didn't exist anymore. And the former territory of Schorr was only about half the size of Marquette. This expansion period just allowed New-Zealand and other nations to finally catch up to Marquette in size and it seems like Marquette is upset about this.

Also, I'd like to point out that Marquette is upset because there is supposedly not enough room for other nations to claim, when that's not true because there are open spaces on all the continents.

For these reasons, I urge nations to vote NO on this bill when the time comes.

This is not about nations catching up to me. I have no interest in further claiming land, as I'm pleased with the size of my United Kingdom and I don't want it to grow. I'd like to note that I did not claim land in the New Year's Land Grab, and the land I claimed in the 1 Year 100 Days expansion was [unofficially] part of my nation since September.

Also, I know that Sambhala Songha ceased to exist, I meant that you claimed the entire territory of a former nation. Also, obviously there are large nations and small nations, but we already have several large nations. I don't want everyone's size to be equal, but I want everyone's size to be realistic. There simply aren't that many large nations IRL, so why should there be in our fake world?

Also, I looked at the map, you barely gave up any land for Agorapolis, so don't try to say that you didn't even get that much land, because you got a huge amount.

Arveyres Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:29 am

Big fat NO. You said you were pleased with the size of your United Kingdom and you didn't want it to grow, so let others grow theirs. Don't make this harder on everyone else, deal with the map claim. It's over and done with.

Marquette (of Pacific) Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:33 am

Arveyres wrote:Big fat NO. You said you were pleased with the size of your United Kingdom and you didn't want it to grow, so let others grow theirs. Don't make this harder on everyone else, deal with the map claim. It's over and done with.

This isn't about not letting nations grow, this is a about revoking this expansion in which nations claimed gargantuan pieces of land. I'm all for expansions, but not land grabs where nations double in size overnight.

Atletius Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:47 am

I propose this amendment be made to the Bill.

This bill proposes all nations which submitted claims during the New Year expansion period re-submit their claims, in order for them to be judged against all criteria which claims are usually judged against (size limitations etc).
This acknowledges nations right to expand their borders, but ensures such a expansion takes place in an orderly fashion , and in a way that is realistic.

Feedback is welcome and appreciated.

Europe and Asia Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:12 am

Don't you think that this infringes upon nations rights just a smidge?

Marquette (of Pacific) Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:35 am

Europe and Asia wrote:Don't you think that this infringes upon nations rights just a smidge?

How? And the bill or the resolution?

Europe and Asia Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:05 am

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
Europe and Asia wrote:Don't you think that this infringes upon nations rights just a smidge?

How? And the bill or the resolution?

The bill to remove land grab. This was done to celebrate, and removing them without any possibility to get any portion back is kinda infringing on a nations right to sovereignty. Currently, that's just my opinion.

Marquette (of Pacific) Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:22 am

Europe and Asia wrote:
Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
Europe and Asia wrote:Don't you think that this infringes upon nations rights just a smidge?

How? And the bill or the resolution?

The bill to remove land grab. This was done to celebrate, and removing them without any possibility to get any portion back is kinda infringing on a nations right to sovereignty. Currently, that's just my opinion.

I don't think it is infringing on anyone's sovereignty, but that's why Atletius proposed his amendment to the bill: so nations can at least take a sane amount of land from the ordeal.

Europe and Asia Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:24 am

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
Europe and Asia wrote:
Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
Europe and Asia wrote:Don't you think that this infringes upon nations rights just a smidge?

How? And the bill or the resolution?

The bill to remove land grab. This was done to celebrate, and removing them without any possibility to get any portion back is kinda infringing on a nations right to sovereignty. Currently, that's just my opinion.

I don't think it is infringing on anyone's sovereignty, but that's why Atletius proposed his amendment to the bill: so nations can at least take a sane amount of land from the ordeal.

Oh did he? Can you quote atleius's post for me? It's just showing up for me as blank.

Marquette (of Pacific) Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:28 am

Atletius wrote:I propose this amendment be made to the Bill.

This bill proposes all nations which submitted claims during the New Year expansion period re-submit their claims, in order for them to be judged against all criteria which claims are usually judged against (size limitations etc).
This acknowledges nations right to expand their borders, but ensures such a expansion takes place in an orderly fashion , and in a way that is realistic.

Feedback is welcome and appreciated.

Europe and Asia Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:43 am

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
Atletius wrote:I propose this amendment be made to the Bill.

This bill proposes all nations which submitted claims during the New Year expansion period re-submit their claims, in order for them to be judged against all criteria which claims are usually judged against (size limitations etc).
This acknowledges nations right to expand their borders, but ensures such a expansion takes place in an orderly fashion , and in a way that is realistic.

Feedback is welcome and appreciated.

That I can support. Some nations, like myself, didn't claim massive amounts of land, so I wanted some sort of protection for people like us who didn't claim half a continent.

Great Eurussia Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:48 am

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
@Eurussia, you're a member of Parliament, you're not interfering...

Thank you! :-)

And I've heard that someone (I think Marquette) that it is unrealistic for nations to have so much land. Yet, to tell you, it is BASELESS. Why? Occasional territorial expansions won't stop does the increasing of sizes of all, particularly older nations. So eventually, nations will get larger and larger. Does it mean months from now, we could say that too large nations should reduce their sizes because they are becoming unrealistic?

Europe and Asia Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:43 am

I'd like to point out that I don't disagree with the expansion, but I think it should have been more...tempered.

New-Zealand Sun Jan 12, 2014 5:00 pm

It a big bold red size 24 underlined NO from me.

P.S. That means I vote against the bill btw.

Federation of Antanares Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:42 pm

Antanares support the proposal of Marquette but only if is accepted the amendment of Atletius. I say YESto the amendment and to the bill.

Atletius Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:10 pm

New-Zealand wrote:It a big bold red size 24 underlined NO from me.

P.S. That means I vote against the bill btw.

Size 24? He means business,
Would you not support the amendment I proposed?

Shirouma Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:11 pm

I am in favour

Texania Mon Jan 13, 2014 12:32 am

I would like to point out that i lost most of my land in my civil war.If you subtract the land I lost in my civil war then my claim is Very reasonable.

Sponsored content

(Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

(Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

NO! NO! NO!

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab

Re: (Revoked) Revocation of the New Year Land Grab